Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, ETC.) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

CANTERBURY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

DERBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [Lords]

As amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

CITY OE LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Third Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Consultants, Wales (Plastic Surgery)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to increase the number of consultant plastic surgeons in Wales; and whether he win make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): No present increase in the number of consultant plastic surgeons in Wales is contemplated by the regional hospital board. Facilities for patients in South and West Wales are available at St. Lawrence Hospital, Chepstow, and Llandough Hospital, Penarth. The medical establishment of these units compares favourably with other similar centres. Facilities for patients in North Wales centre mainly on Liverpool.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the fact that, as the Minister herself told me, people have to wait up to two and a half years before being able to receive treatment in these hospitals, will she consult the joint committee set up by the B.M.A. and, I believe, her own Department, and also with the other consultants in St. Lawrence Hospital, and not merely with one man? I think she will find that opinion is in favour of an increase in consultant staff?

Miss Pitt: As my answer implied, the consultant staff position is not unfavourable. The difficulties, which we discussed in the debate to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, arise for some people out of the geographical situation, but I will certainly look at the point which he has raised.

Mr. Thomas: I am obliged.

Dryburn Hospital, Durham

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of Health to what extent the capital cuts in expenditure will involve delay in the building of a new operating theatre in Dryburn Hospital, Durham.

Miss Pitt: My right hon. and learned Friend does not expect any delay on this account.

Mr. Grey: While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, may I emphasise that the present operating theatre was built as an emergency measure and still remains the main operating theatre for people in Durham? Is the hon. Lady aware that it is unfortunate that this should be so, since ventilation and layout are bad, and anything that she can do to speed the building of a new operating theatre will be appreciated?

Miss Pitt: I am aware of the situation because the hon. Gentleman and two of his hon. Friends came to see me a few months ago. I am happy to tell him that, as an interim measure, the regional hospital board intends to spend £5,000 on improvements to the existing theatre pending developments.

Kingshill Maternity Hospital, Swindon

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is still a shortage of maternity beds in Swindon; what steps he will take to provide more at the Kingshill Maternity

Hospital; and what is the estimated cost of each new bed.

Miss Pitt: Yes, Sir. The Oxford Regional Hospital Board is about to start detailed planning on an extension to Kingshill Maternity Hospital. The estimated cost is about £2,000 per bed, excluding fees and equipment.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I thank the hon. Lady for that answer, but is she aware that there is growing anxiety about this matter and that, on Friday, for instance, the regional hospital board discussed it and there was a reference to the dangerous situation existing in Swindon? Will she accept that the urgent need is for more beds in Kingshill and also for a decision on what number of beds will be made available in the future for normal cases and what is to happen at the new hospital? Will the hon. Lady agree to allow me and one or two interested and qualified people to come towards the end of the Recess and talk to her about the situation?

Miss Pitt: I am perfectly happy to see the hon. Gentleman if he can fit it into my already very tight programme before we go into Recess. In the meantime, in reply to his supplementary question, I should tell him that a final estimate of the overall shortage of beds in the Swindon area depends on the county planning authority's estimate of the future population of Swindon. This estimate is at present being reviewed again.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the alarming nature of the Report on maternal mortality between 1955 and 1957, which, I understand, the hon. Lady's Department is to publish at the end of the month—unfortunately, after the House has adjourned—will she agree that every effort should be made to meet my hon. Friend who is anxious to discuss maternity services and, indeed, all those people who put Questions on the Order Paper about these matters?

Miss Pitt: I have so offered. On tie main point of the right hon. Lady's supplementary question, there is a Question on the Order Paper.

Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Health what consideration is being


given to the future use of the smaller hospitals in the Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield district on the completion of the new Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield Hospital; and what consultations with local interests are to take place.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I understand that the work of both the small hospitals in Welwyn Garden City will be absorbed in the new hospital and that discussions are to take place in the autumn with the hospital management committee and the local general medical practitioners as to the part the latter can play in staffing the new hospital. The board proposes that one or both of the small hospitals might be used for the treatment of long term geriatric patients.

Mental Patients (Sale of Work)

Mr. Compton Carr: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider, in consultation with the trade unions and other interests concerned, the inauguration of a scheme for the sale to the public of items manufactured by mentally defective persons in hospitals, training centres and sheltered workshops.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am not aware of any serious difficulty in disposing of such articles. I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's useful suggestion should the need arise, but I doubt whether arrangements on a national basis would be justified or practicable.

Mr. Carr: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Would not he agree, however, that nearly all these items are disposed of at private sales of work at a cost far below that which could be obtained in the retail market? Would not he also agree that there is a need to consider the possibility of disposing of these items in the same way as the Lord Roberts' Workshops dispose of work done by disabled Service men?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. The price-fixing by the hospital authorities and local authorities is a longs Landing arrangement and has so far been thought to be suitable in these cases where the prime object of the work is not the price which the finished article attracts but the therapeutic value of actually making or fashioning it.

Agency Nurses

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Health what are the total numbers of agency nurses employed, and authorised to be employed, in hospitals in each of the Metropolitan regional hospital boards.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The numbers at present authorised are:


North-West
…
…
…
26


North-East
…
…
…
Nil


South-East
…
…
…
6


South-West
…
…
…
21


The numbers actually employed vary from time to time, but at a recent date were 25, nil, 2 and 21 for those regions, respectively.

Mr. Lewis: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, however attractive it may be to employ agency nurses where there is an under-establishment, there is the great danger that these nurses come out of the normal pool and, therefore, over-employment of them may be not only expensive but may take away from the number of nurses available for staff posts?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that we have those considerations in mind. As long ago as 1949, hospitals were informed that the employment of agency nurses on remuneration higher than that in the Whitley Agreement or recommended by the Rushcliffe Committee should be terminated as soon as possible. Since then these agency arrangements have been entered into only with the approval of the Minister, who takes all these considerations into account.

Buildings

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health how many hospitals are either substantially over 50 years old or mainly composed of temporary buildings erected more than 15 years ago.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The information available shows only the dates at which hospitals were originally erected, but not the date or extent of subsequent alterations and improvements over the period in question. Fourteen hundred hospitals now in use were originally erected before 1910, and 90 mainly consisting of temporary buildings have been in use for more than 15 years.

Mr. Boyden: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what proportion


of new building that represents in the current year and in the years to come compared with the number of old and derelict buildings?

Mr. Walker-Smith: In the present year, £25½ million has been allocated for hospital building in England and Wales. That is divided between centrally financed major schemes, allocations to hospital boards and lesser amounts for plant replacement and special mental hospital needs, respectively. Of the first two items, which comprise the larger amount, the hospital boards' allocation is slightly bigger than the amount for centrally financed schemes. Not all the centrally financed schemes are for new hospitals. Some of them are for the extension and modernisation of existing hospitals.

Therapeutic Dietitians

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health what steps he has taken to see that the 110 vacancies for therapeutic dietitians have been filled; and with what results.

Miss Pitt: Salaries were substantially increased last October and, with the independent professional status which therapeutic dietitians will attain under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend hopes that more people will be encouraged to enter the profession. He is considering what advice might usefully be given to hospital authorities on how to make the best use of the available therapeutic dietitians and reduce wastage.

Mr. Boyden: Is it still the position that about one-half of the dietitians are in the teaching hospitals and that in the provinces two-thirds of the hospital management committees have no advice at all?

Miss Pitt: I am not able to give the specific figures without notice, but a survey of the work of therapeutic dietitians in the hospital service has been carried out by the Department in conjunction with the King Edward's Hospital Fund for London and its results will shortly be published. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering issuing to hospital authorities, on the basis of the survey, advice about ways of making more effective use of the dietitians now

in the service and of future recruits. I believe that the suggestion will also tend to reduce unnecessary wastage.

Mr. Marsh: Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the achievement of independent professional status is no effective substitute for higher salaries as an inducement to recruitment?

Miss Pitt: I should have thought that both were important. As I said in my answer, salaries were increased last October. They range from £550 for the newly-qualified entrants to £910 for a dietitian in charge of a large department. These increases represented awards ranging from 10 to 20 per cent.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Is it necessary for Ministers, in reply to supplementary questions, to read out the whole of the brief that is given them by their Department?

Mr. Speaker: I should like to think about that later on.

Barncoose Hospital, Redruth

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Health whether final plans have yet been approved for the necessary adaptations at Barncoose Hospital, Redruth, to accommodate the maternity unit on 1st January, 1961.

Miss Pitt: I understand that the regional hospital board has received tenders for the first stage of the work and has approved plans for the remainder.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary urge the regional board to proceed with the work as quickly as possible, because nobody on the spot believes that the Barncoose Hospital will be ready to accept the maternity unit by the end of the year?

Miss Pitt: The regional hospital board hopes to have the work completed by the end of the year.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the hon. Lady aware, in the light of what has been said about the rather shocking Report that will be produced at the end of the month, that this is the second Question on maternity services which has been raised this afternoon? Both hon. Members have indicated that there has been a long delay in providing adequate accommodation.

Miss Pitt: This is an entirely different matter. This Question relates to requisitioned property, and as requisitioning comes to an end at the end of the year, it is necessary to provide alternative accommodation.

New Hospital, West Cornwall

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Health when final approval of the sketch plans for the proposed new area hospital for West Cornwall was given.

Miss Pitt: When the regional hospital board was authorised to prepare working drawings in July last year.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain why she told me in February this year that the final plans for certain engineering works had not yet been approved? Will she kindly say what progress is being made with both engineering and general plans?

Miss Pitt: I understand that the preparation of the engineering drawings proceeds concurrently with the preparation of the working drawings, which is the stage which the board has now reached.

Consultants

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health the number of whole-time consultants employed in the National Health Service for the years 1954 and 1959, and the number of part-time consultants employed for the same years.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Exact figures are not available, but the following is an approximate estimate: 1954, 1,730 whole-time, 4,780 part-time; 1959, 1,844 whole-time, 5,258 part-time.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the Minister any policy on the future planning of the consultant service? Is the S.H.M.O. grade to be absorbed into the grade of consultant or to become a permanent backwater or a career grade? Does the Minister wish to encourage consultants on a part-time basis, or would he not prefer more consultants to be full-time?

Hon. Members: Reading a brief.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Concerning the retention of part-time consultants in the Service, the hon. Member may be aware of the provisions of the National Health

Service (Amendment) Act, 1949, which was passed when the party opposite was in power, which safeguards their continuance. So far as remuneration is concerned, that should be adjusted in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. So far as—

Sir J. Duncan: On a point of order. Is it not much worse for back-bench Members to read the whole of a brief than for junior Ministers to do so?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know. Whatever hurries them up suits me. Let us, however, get on with the business.

Mr. Walker-Smith: In that case, Mr. Speaker, the least I can do to further your efforts is not to proceed with the answer which I was about to give.

Out-Patients (Doctors)

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give an assurance that patients referred by general medical practitioners to hospital outpatients' departments for the purpose of obtaining an opinion of a doctor of consultant status, are not seen only by a junior doctor engaged upon his preregistration training.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It would not be appropriate for an out patient to be seen only by an unsupervised, provisionally registered house officer, and I have no evidence that this occurs. Some part of the investigation may properly be delegated to such junior staff under the consultant's responsibility.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that my information is that this sometimes happens in certain hospitals to which my attention has been drawn? If I send to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the details that have been provided to me, will he look into the matter and have it investigated?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, of course, I will look at any case that the hon. Member likes to put to me. The principle is, however, as I have stated it in answer to the Question.

Private Patients, Manchester

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health what procedure he is proposing to adopt in investigating the allegations of privilege accorded to private


patients attending as National Health Service out-patients in certain Manchester Hospitals, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange.

Miss Pitt: I assume the hon. Member refers to the enclosures to his letter of 6th July. These deal mainly with delegation of work by consultants to less senior doctors, but my right hon. and learned Friend is arranging for consideration of this and other matters with which he has been concerned, by the hospital boards.

Mr. Griffiths: In thanking the hon. Lady for that Answer, may I ask whether she also proposes to forward to the Regional Board for investigation the letters sent to her by, for instance, a Manchester consultant or from any other sources from which they have come to her Ministry, so that the whole of these matters can be investigated by the regional board? When the board's investigation has been completed, will the hon. Lady be prepared to make a statement in the House as to its findings?

Miss Pitt: My right hon. and learned Friend is seeking the views of the board concerning the letter from the consultant which the hon. Member has mentioned. As to the final position, I would rather not commit my right hon. and learned Friend, but certainly the hon. Member will be made aware of whatever information is available.

Mr. K. Robinson: On the final point, does the hon. Lady not agree that there is considerable anxiety on this sort of matter? If she investigates allegations, will she ensure that a statement is made to the House in order to allay public anxiety on the matter?

Miss Pitt: I would not wish to exaggerate the anxiety, which has been raised principally by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths). If information about Manchester is forthcoming, I should have thought it proper to acquaint him first.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Social Workers

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health when he intends to set up a national council for social work training.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I hope soon to make a statement about this and the other recommendations of the Working Party on Social Workers.

Mr. Robinson: Would not the Minister agree that the plans of the local health authorities for community mental health services are severely handicapped by the lack of trained social workers? In view of the fact that several years must necessarily elapse between setting up a body of this kind and the provision of additional social workers, is there not a case for very urgent action on the Minister's part?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I agree that trained social workers are a very useful attribute in local authority schemes connected with their mental health programmes. I am aware of the necessity for urgency in this matter, but, at the same time, I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I must give due weight to all the considerations put before me.

Diabetes

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Health whether he will draw the attention of local authorities who are considering a mass radiography campaign in order to detect pulmonary tuberculosis to the need to combine such a campaign with a check-up for diabetes.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think this would be desirable as such a combination would be likely to impede the primary purpose of the campaign.

Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that for every known diabetic one man or woman has diabetes unknown to himself or herself? Is he aware that, had I not by luck discovered when going to West Africa that I was a diabetic, there would have been a by-election in Liverpool, Wavertree? Is it not better to spend a little money now on early discovery rather than have a very much larger bill later on?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am very glad that my hon. Friend discovered his own case in time, not because I would in any way shrink from the verdict of the electors of Wavertree or anywhere else, but because, in common with the rest of the House, I so much value his


presence among us. We are seeking to do what we can in the investigation of this important matter. In particular, the College of General Practitioners has an investigation in progress now from which we hope to have good results.

Hearing Aids

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Health if he will take powers to prescribe the medical training required by salesmen of hearing aids manufactured by private firms.

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend does not think there are sufficient grounds to justify such a step.

Mrs. Butler: Is the hon. Lady aware that in my constituency elderly people are being visited in their own home by salesmen and some of them are entering into hire-purchase agreements, which they cannot afford and which they very often do not understand, only to find that the hearing aid supplied is the wrong type, an internal one where an external aid is needed, or vice versa? Can she find some way of protecting these people whose age and deafness make them particularly vulnerable?

Miss Pitt: If that is correct, I would deprecate it. It is a fact that Medresco hearing a ids can be obtained free under the National Health Service, and my right hon. and learned Friend is advised that there are no medical grounds for seeking to intervene in private transactions involving hearing aids. The purchaser of an unsuitable hearing aid is unlikely to suffer harm from it.

Mrs. Butler: But is not the hon. Lady aware that, while there may be no permanent harm, fitting an internal hearing aid to somebody who needs an external one can cause a great deal of discomfort and pain and some injury, which remains for a little time, although it may not be permanent? Is that not a medical ground?

Miss Pitt: I am not aware of any medical ground. I hope that these questions and answers may bring home to some of the hon. Lady's constituents the fact that they can obtain adequate aids under the National Health Service.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health if he will make arrangements

whereby British citizens serving Her Majesty's Government overseas can be supplied with a spare Medresco hearing aid in case of need.

Miss Pitt: My right hon. and learned Friend's responsibilities are limited to England and Wales, but the Ministry has made arrangements with the Service Departments for the servicing and replacement of Medresco hearing aids used overseas by persons for whom they are responsible. While he could not undertake to supply any person with two aids, my right hon. and learned Friend will consider with his right hon. Friends the possibility of reducing delays by the carrying of limited stocks of spare parts in the main overseas commands of the Services.

Mr. Swingler: This matter concerns not only Service men but civilians who are serving in far-away places overseas. I gave the hon. Lady an example recently. Should not the National Health Service aim to cater for the needs of such persons who may be serving in distant places overseas and who may require from time to time to send their hearing aids to the United Kingdom for repairs, with the result that they are left without a hearing aid for weeks or, perhaps, months? Would it not be possible for the National Health Service to provide at least a spare hearing aid for such people?

Miss Pitt: The case about which the hon. Member wrote to me is that of a civilian, but a civilian employed by the War Department and, therefore, the responsibility of that Service Department. If he were a private individual there would be no responsibility because, as I have already explained, my right hon. and learned Friend's authority does not extend outside England and Wales. I will add that we have not been asked by the Service Departments to supply spare aids for patients, but we are to discuss with them at a meeting at the end of the month whether they would like to carry limited stocks of spare aids and parts in the main Service centres concerned.

Poliomyelitis (Oral Vaccine)

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements he has made for trials in the use of oral live poliovirus vaccine; and how soon he expects


to be in a position to decide whether such vaccine can be used in the immunisation programme.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Medical Re- search Council is carrying out small scale trials of the Sabin oral vaccine. A decision as to the use of oral vaccine in this country's vaccination programme is unlikely to be reached for some time yet, as it will depend on the outcome of these trials and on the experience that is being gathered in other countries, and those who are eligible would be well advised to come forward now for vaccination under the current arrangements, if they have not already done so.

Lord Balniel: I do not wish to appear in any way critical, because this matter is so technical and there is the extremely important factor of risk, but does not my right hon. and learned Friend feel that we are, perhaps, moving rather slowly inasmuch as over 10 million people have been subjected to trials with this vaccine in the world?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir, I could not agree with by noble Friend in that. The experience of other countries in the trial and use of oral vaccines is not always necessarily applicable to conditions here. We keep a close watch on what goes on abroad, but that would in no way exempt us from the need to make our own trials here.

Childbirth (Deaths)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health, in the light of the disclosure in his Department's Report on Maternal Deaths, 1955–57, that 41 per cent. of the 861 deaths expertly assessed were attributable to neglect and mismanagement and could have been avoided, what new steps he intends to take to protect the lives of women in childbirth.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think that these figures carry quite the implication the hon. Member suggests. The Report covers the second three years of a continuing investigation of the factors contributing to maternal deaths, and by promoting the study of those which are avoidable is itself an important contribution to the measures taken to bring about an improvement. I am glad to say that this second Report contains ample evidence that a considerable improvement has in fact been achieved.

Mr. Robinson: While the right hon. and learned Gentleman can be congratulated on conducting this investigation, is he aware that his Department's Report is extremely disturbing in some respects? Would he not agree that, since the Report also indicates that the risks attendant upon childbirth in the home are about four times as great as those attendant on childbirth in hospital, it provides the most powerful argument for his implementing at an early stage the Cranbrook Committee's recommendations about more carefully and rigidly controlled obstetric lists?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The particular recommendation of the Cranbrook Committee which the hon. Gentleman has singled out is one which, as he may know, is under consideration in consultation with the medical profession. Most of the other recommendations in the Cranbrook Report have already been commended to those providing the maternity services.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister must not treat this so lightly. The Report specifically states that domiciliary midwifery and midwifery in hospital can be severely criticised. On domiciliary midwifery, it states that a number of women who died in childbirth had suffered from heart disease and nobody had examined their heart before the confinement. With regard to hospital midwifery, it is clear that people unfitted to do Caesarian sections in hospital have done them. I think that 140 women have died following a Caesarian section, which today should not be a complicated operation.

Mr. Walker-Smith: In so far as the Report draws attention to avoidable factors, it does a public service, and we shall seek to ensure that those factors are avoided in future. At the same time, while resolute to progress in that way, we should keep the context in view. Over the period of three years covered by the Report, over 2 million women were safely confined and, in this decade, we have succeeded in reducing the figures of maternal mortality from 0·87 per thousand in 1950 to 0·38 per thousand in 1959, a reduction of more than a half. These are figures which, I think, would arouse the envy and excite the emulation of most countries in the world.

Foreigners (Treatment)

Dr. Glyn: asked the Minister of Health how many foreigners belonging to countries with which this country has no reciprocal arrangements have received free treatment under the National Health Service in the last 12 months; and what is his estimate of the saving, including any administrative costs, that would accrue to the Exchequer if they were refused free medical treatment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. With regard to the second part, having regard to the probable cost of any scheme for identifying foreigners, I doubt if any net saving would accrue.

Dr. Glyn: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, may I ask him whether he agrees that it would be of great benefit to British nationals if we could get reciprocal arrangements with as many countries as possible and that one of the best ways of doing that is to stop free medical treatment to nationals of countries which do not have reciprocal arrangements with us?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. It is a good thing to extend the principle of reciprocity as far as we can, and on that we are actively engaged. I cannot, however, agree with the second part of his supplementary question on the best method of obtaining reciprocity. I think that it is better to proceed in the way we are proceeding and to extend our agreements on a basis of good will wherever we can.

Mr. W. Griffiths: Does the Minister recall that in a debate on this subject his hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), who was then Parliamentary Secretary, was good enough to obtain some figures for the London region? He revealed to the House that in the London area, Which attracts most overseas visitors, those from overseas who had used the National Health Service most were Australians, Canadians and members of the Commonwealth. Is not that a very desirable state of affairs?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, but that does not come within the compass of my hon.

Friend's Question about aliens. I am satisfied, however, that the cost of supplying these services is relatively small. We take steps to try to check abuse, but I think that generally speaking, in the second half of the twentieth century, it is desirable that we should try not to fall below the standard of those medieval monasteries which asked the sick traveller not whence he came or whither he went but sought to help and to 'heal him.

Medical Students

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health the number of full-time students entering university institutions for the first time in the faculty of medicine for the years 1954–55 and 1958–59; if he is satisfied that the current supply of newly qualified doctors is sufficient to staff the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Walker-Smith: According to my information, the number of students entering medical schools in Great Britain was about 2,100 in 1954–55 and about 1,900 in 1958–59. The Willink Committee, reporting in 1957, suggested a reduction in student intake of about 10 per cent. as soon as practicable. The Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration, which reported last February, expressed the view that the supply of candidates for training as doctors is reasonably close to requirements.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Professor Jewkes drew attention to the fact that this slowing down of the intake into the faculty of medicine could increase in momentum? Is he aware that, on the side of the G.P.s, a considerable amount of pressure is put upon their time by large lists and that it is desirable to reduce the large lists to the size of the national average? Will not this require more doctors and not fewer?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The question of the size of lists raises rather larger issues than are involved in this Question. Of course, I have great regard for everything that Professor Jewkes says. The hon. Member will recall that his was a Minority Report and that the Majority Report said that the supply of candidates for training as doctors was reasonably close to requirements.

Mr. Brockway: Whilst the intake may be adequate for the medical service of this country, is it not the case that there is a great need in Commonwealth countries, where, sometimes, there is only one doctor for 40,000 of the population?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Whatever may be the considerations affecting that, it clearly does not arise out of this Question, which is limited to doctors "sufficient to staff the National Health Service".

Payments, Shrewsbury (Inquiry)

Mr. J. Silverman: asked the Minister of Health whether he has received the report and findings of the private inquiry instituted by him to inquire into allegations of irregularity in payments for National Health Service treatment in the Shrewsbury area; whether he is now in a position to disclose the findings of the inquiry; and what action he proposes to take thereon.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have not yet received the report of this inquiry, which was concluded on the 12th July. The other parts of the Question do not therefore at present arise.

Mr. Silverman: Is there any indication when the report and findings are likely to be received by the Minister?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Submissions by counsel were heard on 12th July, and I know that the Committee is fully seized of the desirability of submitting its report as quickly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH FOREIGN MINISTER (VISIT)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on his talks with the Spanish Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Mendelson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will report to the House on the discussions he has just concluded with the Foreign Minister of Spain.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks with the Foreign Minister of Spain.

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make

a statement on his recent official conversations with the Foreign Minister of Spain.

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, during his forthcoming conversations with the Spanish Foreign Minister, he will discuss the possibility of the accession of Spain to the Convention on Human Rights, of which this country is a signatory.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): As forecast in my reply to the hon. Member for Wednesbury on 29th June, I had a general exchange of views with Senor Castiella on the international situation and also discussed with him certain matters of common concern to our two countries. We signed an Anglo-Spanish Cultural Convention. As I have already told the House, this was not an occasion for formal negotiations. I am certain, however, that the visit will have helped to improve relations between our two countries.

Mr. Jeger: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that on 29th June he informed me that he cannot intervene in what are internal Spanish matters, yet he was reported in the meantime as having discussed with the Spanish Foreign Minister matters of religious freedom, on which we all agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's views? Did he not take the opportunity of discussing personal and political freedom, and also of asking for an amnesty for those people condemned without trial as political prisoners who are now in gaol in Spain?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it is important, if we are to have any influence in these matters, not to raise internal affairs. So far as the question of Protestants is concerned, I did raise the question of Protestants in Spain, with particular reference to British-owned chapels and the British and Foreign Bible Society.

Mr. Mendelson: While the Foreign Secretary was speaking about improving relations, is he aware that at a meeting in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs the Spanish Foreign Secretary said that he was proud of his record of having fought on the Axis side at a time when this country was fighting for its life, and that he used the old propaganda method,


long ago exposed by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), of alleging that he was fighting Communism? Is he prepared to tell the House that he wants to build a new Europe with Fascists like the Spanish Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Lloyd: As I have said before, these incidents happened a very long time ago, and we have sought in many other respects to try to re-form our relations with other countries which were enemy countries at that time. We have to take facts as they are now and try to improve relations.

Mr. Healey: If we are to take facts as they are now, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is aware of the fact that 139 Basque priests recently wrote to their bishops protesting against the actions of the Franco régime as being inconsistent with human dignity? Will he say whether, if he accepts Senor Castiella's invitation to visit Spain himself, he will seek an opportunity to meet representatives of these priests? Will he say why he has chosen this, of all moments, to strengthen the international standing of the Franco régime when it is under almost universal attack by its own people?

Mr. Lloyd: As I said when the question of the invitation arose, it is a very important thing not to make the internal policies of a particular Government the criterion whether one tries to improve relations or not. I think I would find these protests a little more understandable if there were corresponding protests about what is happening in other countries of the world. I say that I am absolutely convinced that it is the sincere desire of Senor Castiella to improve relations between our two countries.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the whole House will be relieved that no question was raised of Spain's admission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] Is he further aware that the whole British people regard with absolute repugnance the idea of Britain entering into defence arrangements with a régime that gave active support to Hitler? Will he use the opportunity of denying that there is any possibility of such joint defence arrangements being entered into?

Mr. P. Williams: On a point of order. On what grounds does the hon. Member claim to speak for the whole British people?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member bears the responsibility for what he claims to speak about. I forget where we were, but I think the Minister has an answer to give.

Mr. Lloyd: It was made quite clear by the Spanish Foreign Minister himself when he came here that the question of Spanish membership of N.A.T.O. was not going to be raised. It was not raised. I think, perhaps speaking for the British people with a greater sense of responsibility, that I would venture to disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Foreign Secretary think he was very remiss, in the interests of candour, in not having made known to the Spanish Foreign Minister the very great concern felt in this country about the condition of political prisoners in Burgos, and the general desire that there should be an amnesty for political offenders, after such a very long time?

Mr. Lloyd: I would put seriously to the hon. Member that this question of interfering with the internal affairs of another country, and particularly of a very proud people, is not the way of arriving at the kind of purpose which he has in mind.

Sir J. Duncan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that we on this side of the House welcome the cultural agreement which he has made with the Foreign Minister of Spain as a first step to getting closer relations with that country?

Mr. Lloyd: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned this question of the Cultural Convention, because it helps the British Council, which is operating in Spain. It is, I think, a very good way of putting across our ideas on certain of these matters, and this Convention will strengthen the British position.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that, whatever views may be held about the Spanish Government, surely a great majority of people in Britain would like


to have friendly relations with the 30 million proud people of Spain and wish him well in his negotiations to build up that friendship?

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I am perfectly certain that I am right in the policy I have pursued in this matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman drew a parallel between what he is now doing in Spain and the more friendly relations that we now have with former enemy countries, was he intending to represent to the House that the present régime in Western Germany is comparable with the present régime in Spain?

Mr. Lloyd: What I was saying was that I am trying to deal with the situation as it is at present, and I think that the Spanish Foreign Minister sincerely wishes to secure friendly relations between our two countries, which is in the interests of both countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE (CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS)

Mr. Mathew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, of the nine European conventions and agreements concluded by the members of the Council of Europe in 1957, 1958 and 1959, the United Kingdom has signed three and ratified one; and to what extent this involves a modification of the stated policy of Her Majesty's Government to participate fully in the work of European co-operation.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am aware of these circumstances, but I would assure my hon. Friend that this does not reflect any modification of Her Majesty's Government's policy of seeking the fullest possible co-operation with other European countries. Consideration is still being given to the ratification of the two conventions signed but not yet ratified by Her Majesty's Government. The remaining conventions are, in general, such as to conflict with our legal system and practice.

Mr. Mathew: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that Answer, which will be received with some satis

faction by our fellow-members in the Council of Europe, may I ask him if he does not think that it will greatly enhance the reputation of this country if these international obligations were fulfilled promptly?

Mr. Lloyd: I think they should be fulfilled as promptly as possible, but there are a number of fairly wide considerations involved. To give one example to the House, one of the conventions which we do not feel we should sign is one enabling police officers of other States to seek out and question witnesses in this country. I should have thought that, quite obviously, that is a matter of very considerable complication, which one cannot possibly sign as an expression of good will towards European countries. One has to consider that matter very carefully indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Polaris Missiles

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will oppose at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation the provision of Polaris missiles to West Germany.

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct Her Majesty's Government's representative on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council to oppose any proposal which involves the supply of Polaris missiles to Western Germany.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the acceptance of the Polaris weapon by the West German Government depends upon the decision of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, if he will instruct the United Kingdom representative on that body to oppose the possession of that weapon by West Germany.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This matter was dealt with fully by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his answers to Questions last Thursday. I have nothing to add.

Mr. Allaun: First, did not the Prime Minister, in refusing to answer by saying that these missiles might not replace the bombers for some time, dodge the fact that the decision to proceed might be


taken immediately? Secondly, what guarantee is there that in an emergency the German commanders could not seize the nuclear warheads?

Mr. Lloyd: What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said was that there was no proposal of this nature before N.A.T.O. at the present time. We have to see what proposal there is. I think it has to be judged both on its military and on its political merits, but I have no intention of saying ahead of that discussion what will be the position of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that, as the Prime Minister himself admitted in his answer to a Question last week—incidentally, it was almost the only clear statement that he made—in connection with this matter there has already been informal discussion with the N.A.T.O. Council? Is it not also the case that General Norstadt and M. Spaak discussed this with the British Government last week? Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that the evasiveness and refusal to answer clear questions on this matter is resented not only by the Opposition but by the vast majority of the British people?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Lloyd: I doubt that very much. There have been neither formal nor informal discussions of this matter in the N.A.T.O. Council.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not clear from what Herr Strauss, the German Minister of Defence, said recently that he expected that this matter would come before N.A.T.O. very shortly? On the assumption that it does come before N.A.T.O. at some time in the near future, say within the next 12 months, what is to be the position of our representative there? Will there be any clear-cut policy, and will that policy represent not merely the views of Her Majesty's Government but the general views of the House of Commons?

Mr. Lloyd: What we will certainly do is to wait to see what the proposal is and then form our view on it.

Mr. Healey: Really, the Foreign Secretary must be a little more direct with the House than he has been. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is it not the case

that the Standing Group of N.A.T.O. and General Norstadt himself have expressed their clear views on this matter? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman represent to them that in the view of Her Majesty's Government it would advance neither the security nor the solidarity of the Western Alliance to put in Western Germany weapons which can have only an offensive purpose and which will wreck the whole basis of N.A.T.O's present shield strategy?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. I think that with regard to this matter we have to see what proposals are actually put forward. I have as yet heard of no proposal to deploy this weapon on German soil.

Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Foreign Secretary's reply, I should like, in consultation with you, Mr. Speaker, to raise the matter next week on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill?

Nerve Gases

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, he will ask the West German Government to end the research work into nerve gases now being undertaken by the Bayer Dyestuffs factory.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. It is no part of the North Atlantic Treaty Oiganisation's function to serve as a channel for such a request. In any case, I have no evidence of such research work being undertaken.

Mr. Allaun: Then will the Foreign Secretary examine the evidence that I can send him? Is he aware that this work is led by Dr. Schrader, who developed the Bladan nerve poison for the Nazis in 1939 and later the Tabun gas which was used for concentration camp exterminations? Is not this contrary to the 1954 Agreement?

Mr. Lloyd: What I will certainly do is to examine any evidence that the work has actually been undertaken. I have no such evidence, and I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has said constitutes such evidence.

N.A.T.O. Forces (Weapons)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he


will propose to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council that no West German forces assigned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation shall be equipped with weapons which the German Federal Republic is not permitted by the revised Brussels Treaty to manufacture on its own territory.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Warbey: Was not the rearmament of Germany sold to the British public on the clear understanding that West Germany would not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons or their means of delivery? Are not the purchase of the Mace missile, the plans for Polaris and the manufacture of the Starfighter long-range fighter bomber all steps in the process of evading the clear spirit and intention of the Brussels Treaty?

Mr. Lloyd: The general principle, which I have repeatedly stated to the House, is that in an alliance there should not be discrimination against the troops of one particular country. Manufacture is quite a different matter.

Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that under the Paris Agreements, which were presented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and ratified by this House, there is discrimination against the West German Government in relation to both the weapons which they produce and the number of forces which they maintain? Will the Foreign Secretary really drop this totally untenable argument.

Mr. Lloyd: I was dealing with the troops. I do not think it is a practical possibility to have in the line troops of one country armed with a different weapon from that of allied troops, which are next door to them. The W.E.U. treaties deal with the number of troops, which is quite a different issue, and also with the manufacture of weapons, which is another different issue.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the series of Questions in relation to Germany which the Foreign Secretary is now being asked to answer, would it be possible to put the House in possession of the facts not only in relation to West Germany but in relation to N.A.T.O. and perhaps the opposing forces against which N.A.T.O. is supposed to be a barrier?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seriously considering abandoning the provisions of the Brussels Treaty? Surely he knows what the provisions of that Treaty are, and if he does not propose to abandon them, surely he can interpret them only in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Lloyd: The Brussels Treaty deals with the manufacture of certain types of weapons, and there is the undertaking of the German Government not to manufacture nuclear weapons in Germany. But that is quite a different issue from the question of the provision of nuclear weapons or of the means of delivery of nuclear weapons with the warheads under the "key of the cupboard" arrangement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA (SITUATION)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements he has made with the Government of the United States of America regarding joint action with that Government in response to the taking-over by the Cuban Government of oil refineries owned, or partly owned, by British and United States companies; and if he will make a statement on the situation in Cuba as it affects British life and property.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent exchange of Notes between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Cuba.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Ambassador in Havana delivered a strong protest to the Cuban Government on 4th July against their action in taking over the refinery of the Shell Company of Cuba, and in preventing them for over a year from remitting foreign exchange. Her Majesty's Government have been closely in touch with the United States Government and other Governments concerned over this question. No joint action is being taken, but the United States Government have since taken similar action in respect of the United States oil interests involved.
The reply received by Her Majesty's Ambassador from the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 7th July is now being studied.
So far as I am aware, public order is at present being maintained in Cuba and there is no immediate threat to the safety of British lives and to other British property. British firms other than the Shell Group are not directly involved in the dispute which has arisen between the latter and the Cuban Government.

Mr. Rankin: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman noted that in yesterday's Observer an ex-British Ambassador said that it is possible that America may be tempted to follow in Cuba the bad example set by Russia in Hungary? In view of that possibility, with its contingent danger to British life and property, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman offer to the the American Government some of the good advice they gave us at the time of Suez, when we set an equally bad example?

Mr. Lloyd: Without accepting the various implications of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, what I said in my original Answer was that no joint action is being taken, nor, indeed, is contemplated.

Mr. A. Henderson: As the Cuban situation is to be considered by the Security Council, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider proposing

to the Security Council that under Article 96 of the Charter an advisory opinion on the legality or otherwise of the action of the Cuban Government should be sought from the International Court of Justice?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter which I will certainly bear in mind. As I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is probably aware, the Shell Company is challenging the action taken in the Cuban courts at the present time.

Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he condones the action of the oil companies in defying a long-established Cuban law requiring them to refine Government-owned oil?

Mr. Lloyd: I would rather expect the hon. Member to give a judgment on this matter against the interests of this country beforehand. This is a matter on which I have just said the Shell Company is challenging the action of the Cuban Government in the Cuban courts. I should have thought that the hon. Member might have refrained from an expression of opinion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[24TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1960–61

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for the following services connected with the Use and Price of Land, namely:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1960–61



£


Class V, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government)
10


Class VI, Vote 4 (Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment))
10


Total
£20

LAND (USE AND PRICE)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: It is an interesting historical phenomenon that out of the strains and stresses of war there often emerge the brightest hopes for the peace that is to follow. This has happened twice in our lifetime, and on both occasions the experiences of the war produced profound changes in public opinion, as a result of which there grew and blossomed a mass of proposals for social reforms which would have had little or no chance of survival in the colder and more cautious pre-war Climate.
It may be that the struggle of war produces a stronger sense of nationhood, and so of responsibility to one another. It may be that the hardships and the danger lead us to reject the social injustices and inequalities which were tolerated in peace time. It may be that in war time the community has 'to assert itself if victory is to be won, and that, therefore, the idea that it should do so in peace as well naturally follows. Or it may be simply that State control and initiative, previously derided and feared by many people, justify themselves in war and so win more general recognition as a benevolent influence.
Whatever the explanation may be, the fact of this change of opinion, and the hopes to which it gives rise, is undeniable, and no better illustration is to be found than in town and country planning and the way in which we handled the problem of how to determine the use we make of our land. Even before the war there was, of course, concern about some aspects of this problem. The Barlow Committee was appointed largely because it was realised that the drift, at that time, of the population towards the South and South-East of England was creating tremendous problems not only of social and economic, but also of a military character. There was the realisation then that we could not go on in the old ways, simply leaving it to the lure of profit to decide where industry was to be located.
The Barlow Commission reported in 1940, and one of its recommendations was that the problem of planning could not be solved unless the problems of finance were also tackled and, in particular, the problem of compensation, on the one side, and betterment, on the other. So we had the appointment, during the war, of the Uthwatt Committee and the Scott Committee, then following their Reports, much debate within the Coalition Government, and, later, under the Labour Government, we had the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947.
It is unnecessary for us to go over the ground of these Reports again, but it is worth recalling the general ideas which were current at that time, and which lay behind all this blossoming of social reforms and new legislation. It was the feeling widely shared that we must somehow, as a community, ensure that our industrial development was balanced and that we did not have certain areas which were derelict with high levels of unemployment while others had a shortage of labour and rapidly developing building and transport problems.
It was the belief that in a modern age we ought to ensure, as a community, the gracious and harmonious development of our cities. It was hoped that, at last, out of the bombing of so many of our cities, there would emerge better architecture and more attractive surroundings,


There was hope that we might at long last do something to preserve the loveliness of our countryside, so frequently desecrated in the past by uncontrolled development. There was the hope, too, that the community, at last, would reap the benefit of the increased land values resulting from its own development, and that with the help of the benefit accruing to the community in this way, the cost of compensation, inevitable in any attempt to control development, would be met.
Now, fifteen years later, we must ask ourselves how the reality of today compares with the high hopes of the war years. There are some things to be set on the credit side. However much we may criticise, as indeed we do, the inadequacy of the Government's action in development areas and in bringing employment to Scotland, to North and South Wales, and to the North of England, I would not wish to deny that at least today no Government dare refuse the responsibility for trying to do something about this problem.
Undoubtedly, there have been granted to local authorities quite substantial planning powers, though of a negative kind. Whether they are used adequately or not is another matter, to which I shall return.
Equally, one must certainly record that in a few individual cases municipal post-war development has been admirable. I think that the outstanding example of redevelopment of a city centre since the war is that of Coventry. The council, facing the problem of building on a bombed area, has produced what many of us regard as one of the most architecturally satisfying and harmonious groups of buildings, the Precinct, near the new cathedral.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And Plymouth.

Mr. Gaitskell: I shall not get into an argument with my hon. Friend about civic centres. I did mention Coventry and I shall not give a general list, but the Plymouth plan is also a fine one.
Equally, one must put on the credit list the establishment of National Parks, with the especially severe control of building which exists within them. Last, but not least, I would put on the credit side the 14 new towns, which have been built since the war. The new towns must

be regarded as one of the great achievements of the post-war period. Socially, economically and architecturally they have been an outstanding success.
Having mentioned these items on the credit side, however, I must turn to the other side, where a most depressing picture appears, very different from the hopes of the war and of the early postwar period. First, despite the efforts that have been made to help the areas of heavy local unemployment in Scotland, Wales, and the North of England, the drift to the South of population and labour undoubtedly continues.
For instance, in 1949, the London and South-Eastern and and the Southern regions contained 30 per cent. of the population of Great Britain. By 1959, those three regions had accounted for half the country's total increase in population. The Midlands and the North Midlands regions had only 16 per cent. of the population in 1949, but by 1959 they had accounted for nearly one-quarter of the country's total increase in population. London and the Southern region and the Midlands between them had a net gain of 167,000 insured workers between 1951 and 1958, all at the expense of other regions.
I could go on with quotations of similar figures all showing the same tendency, but I will mention only one special point in this connection. It has been estimated that new office space approved by the L.C.C. between 1948 and 1958 provided employment for nearly 250,000 people in the central area alone, an increase of 25,000 office workers a year. In the first three months of this year, it is interesting to notice, The Times advertised just over 3 million sq. ft. of office space to lot, of which only 400,000 sq ft. was outside the central area. That gives a vivid picture of the magnetic attraction of the great conurbations of the Midlands and the South of England.
Secondly, planning or no planing, there is no denying that the red brick sprawl of these great concentrations of population in the Midlands and the South continues. We have green belts around the cities, but the building continues on the other side stretching further and further into the countryside, a slowly mounting tide which seems never-ending.
Thirdly, an appalling problem of traffic congestion has arisen in our major cities. More people are working in the centres of the large towns and, at the same time, more people are living on the peripheries. More people, going to their offices in the mornings and coming back in the evenings, are trying desperately to find a tolerable means of transport for getting there and back. Public transport is hideously overcrowded in the rush hours and private cars are jammed tight together, bumper to bumper, throughout the city. People spend more and more of their time travelling to work and correspondingly less of their time in leisure pursuits.
Fourthly, the redevelopment of our cities, and the city centres in particular, is not being properly planned and carried out by local councils. It is taking place piecemeal as private developers put up this building or that building, in many cases without serious regard to what a decent, planned development should be.
Indeed, for the most part the councils are helpless to stop this nowadays, because the costs of positive planning, or even of negative planning—the cost of acquisition, on the one side, and the cost of compensation for refusal of planning permission, on the other—are so enormouse that the councils cannot bear them.
Finally, there has been, especially in the last year or two, a sensational and shocking rise in the price of land, as a result of which huge fortunes have been made overnight for landowners and speculators at the expense of local councils and the public generally, who have to buy land at tremendously inflated prices.
I can think of no better way of vividly describing the situation with which we are now confronted than that taken from a leader of the Daily Mail on 21st June this year, which said:
A crisis threatens our lovely land. It could be called a Crisis of Property.
We all know it. We can all see it. How many people, watching the ever-growing flood of cars and the ever-shrinking space on which to use them, have said: 'A few more years and the whole lot will seize up.'
This is but one aspect of the Crisis of Property. Another is the increasing urban migration into the country, the pressure of building space, the appalling rise in land values, the spread of subtopia…

What is to be done? The remedy can be summed up in one word: Planning. Too many people, especially Conservatives, regard this as a dirty word and shy away from it. But it is time some real planning was done in Britain…
The Government must also tackle the scandal of land prices. 'Betterment value' has become 'Scarcity value'. It is like food profiteering in a besieged town. The rights of property do not extend that far.
The time is short. If action is not soon taken we shall be caught in a crowded, noisy, muddled subtopian trap of our own devising. And we shall never get out of it.
For all this we hold the Tory Government, by their sins of omission and their sins of commission, entirely responsible. Of course, underlying social forces are at work. We all know that. The population is growing, and growing rather faster than we had assumed. There are fewer persons per house. Families are smaller. People have higher living standards and particularly higher dwelling standards—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Certainly. That is what we all expect. That is what we must provide for. There is a natural desire to own a house and a car, but it is for the Government so to control the influence of those changes that we do not have the muddle, the congestion, the ugliness and the speculation, but that, instead, we realise the high hopes of the war years.
The Government's failure to do this—nobody can deny that the picture I have given of what is happening today is true—can be traced to a doctrinaire dislike of State interference and planning, except in the most negative fashion, combined with determination in one respect only—to give back to private enterprise the right to own and to profit by community development.
What is the Minister's opinion of the situation which has now arisen? Is he satisfied? Does he feel that after his efforts and those of his predecessors we are now having the kind of town and country planning which he expected? Is he satisfied that we are building the kind of country which he wants to see? Does he think that it does not matter that the red brick sprawl goes on and subtopia goes on increasing? Is he satisfied with the colossal rise in land values and the private speculation that goes on? I hope that we shall have a clear explanation of what he feels about all this and


whether he thinks that, after all, the legislation is not what it should have been.
If the right hon. Gentleman admits that things have gone wrong, at least that will be some advance, but, from what he has so far said, one cannot be very encouraged. All he has said is that there will be a firm line about the green belts and that they are not to be touched. He has said that we should build higher and that there should be more flats in the cities so as to reduce the pressure of demand for land in that way. However, he has also said that he has no intention of interfering with the so-called free market in land values.
I want to spend some time on the land-price scandal. I hope that the Minister is aware of the scale of this scandal—he should be from the amount of information which has poured out in the Press every day. I could give hundreds of examples, but I begin with a famous speech from the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, Sir Basil Spence, who said:
Our precious land, so beautiful and so small, has become a casino for the speculators, who are now clamouring to build in the green belts that surround our cities—less, one suspects, because they really want to solve the housing problem, than because there is a fortune to be made if the Minister of Housing and Local Government can be persuaded (and I hope he never will be) to relax his defences.
Sir Basil went on:
The speculators are cornering the limited supply of building land in town and country and holding the community up to ransom.
The money that should be going into better architecture and higher standards is being taken by people who have contributed nothing to the building process. This has grown to the dimensions of a public scandal, and threatens to make good planning and city reconstruction prohibitively expensive.
Let me give a few examples out of the many from which one could quote. Mr. Thomson, of the Southern Counties Federation of Building Trades Employers, said:
In 1952, a reasonable price for an acre of land for housing development would be £1,500, now builders have to pay £8,000.
There was the case of the half acre at Luton, which is said to have been sold for a £¼ million, a plot of land which, according to local surveyors, was bought pre-war for £10,000 to £15,000. There is the case of land bought for school building in Hampshire to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton,

Itchen (Dr. King) referred earlier this year. In that case the rise in price was from £2,824 to £7,500.s
Another example is to be found in Maidstone. A total of 101 acres were sold for £47,700 on which planning permission for 35 houses had been granted, which meant that the cost of land per house was approximately £1,500.
Then there was the case of Middlesex. The Annual Report of the County Valuer for Middlesex said:
The value of land in Middlesex has trebled since the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959.
He then proceeded to give a number of examples, one of which I will mention in a moment or two.
There was the case of the estate of 64 acres, at Camberley. In 1958, this was sold for £25,000. In 1960, without any buildings on it, it was sold for £210,000. There was the case at Coventry where an acre of land was sold for £14,250. At Walsall, in Staffordshire, a site of 40 acres, wanted for a training college, would have cost £24,000 before the 1959 Act. It cost £240,000 afterwards.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: What a racket.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am told of one case where a quarter acre site of agricultural land, worth £50 in the ordinary way, was sold for £40,000 when permission was given to build a petrol station on it.
I mentioned one special case in Middlesex. In July, 1953, the Middlesex County Council approved the purchase of four acres at Sunbury at a cost of a little over £2,000. The council wanted that land to build a school. The owners were reluctant to sell, and, as the site was not required for early development, compulsory purchase could not be invoked. Negotiations continued, and, in October, 1955, a revised figure of £3,500 was approved, but it was not until the basis of the purchase was changed by the 1959 Act that the vendors were prepared to consider an offer. The county council has now had to pay the full market price of £24,500 for three acres.
This is what is happening—as I think that the Minister will agree—all over the South of England and the Midlands, and to a considerable extent over the country as a whole. I must ask him again: did he really think, when he put


through the 1959 Act, that this would happen? Was this in his mind? Did he himself feel that the 1953 Act—which, of course, was the first and, in a sense, the most damaging Act of all—which threw away the compensation and betterment provisions of the Silkin Act, would bring all this about?
I notice that the Financial Memorandum of the Town and Country Planning Bill, 1959, says:
In 1957–58 local authorities spent some £33 million on buying land. The additional capital costs due to Part 1 of the Bill in respect of acquisition at this rate may be of the order of £8 million a year.
Does the Minister really think that that figure is accurate? Does he think that that is all the 1959 Act will cost local authorities? All I can tell him is that from talking to a number of local councillors and officials of local councils all over the country it has been made plain to me that that is a gross underestimate of the cost to the community of what has been done.
It is our view that this was totally unnecessary. It is our view that private individuals, owners, or speculators, or whatever they may be, need not, and should not, be given free gifts of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman may say that the Ecclesiastical Commission owns the land, or produce examples of trade unions owning land—though I do not think many of them do so—but that does not matter. That is not the point. The point is that the community should have the right to the increase in the value.
A real responsibility for this rests not on the Minister of Housing and Local Government today, but on the Prime Minister who, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government threw away the compensation and betterment provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, which, at least, would have ensured that the benefit of these increased values came to the community and put nothing whatever in their place.
The curious thing is that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself seemed to be aware of this at the time because, during the passage of the Town and Country Planning Bill, when arguing in favour of retaining the 1947 valuations for acquisition he said:

The third reason, and to my mind the overwhelming one, why we should retain the 1947 valuation is that if compensation had to be paid in future on values as they accrued"—
which is what has happened—
unknown and perhaps heavy claims would fall upon the community. Thus the broad principle of the 1947 settlement—no compensation for values which accrue after 1947—has been generally accepted as fair.
The Prime Minister went on:
If that were destroyed, new controversies would arise"—
he is right there—
and the revival of those controversies I feel sure would have been equally injurious to the long-term interests of landowners and those of the general public."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 1117.]
That is what the Prime Minister said in 1952, but exactly what he forecast has now happened as a result, in large part, of his own actions.
What is to be done in the face of this situation? Some people say, "It is really a matter of increasing the supply of land", and they consider that the most obvious way of doing that is to increase the supply of land for building purposes by allowing some building on the green belts. We are emphatically and utterly opposed to any such suggestion. I am glad that the Minister has made his position clear on this, but I am bound to ask this. Does he really think that he will be believed? Evidently many people do not believe it, because at the moment land is being bought in the green belts by speculators and prices there are going up pretty fast. They are moving in.
One can hardly be surprised when one considers what this Government and the previous Government have done in the way of putting money into the pockets of private people. One can hardly be surprised if the speculators buying land in the green belts are standing in the queue waiting for their turn. After all, commercial television had it to start with, the steel shareholders then had it, and then the landowners had it. Why keep off the green belts when we have given so much away already?
Even if the Minister stands firm on this I am not sure what his policy is about building on the other side of the green belts. This is what is happening, and it is utterly wrong. The green belts should be the start of the countryside, and not ditches between subtopias. Yet


the Minister is doing nothing to stop this. As far as I can understand it from his statement he is not even discouraging anybody from building on the other side of the green belts. The effect is clear enough; it simply means that we have people working in the towns and living on the other side of the green belts, commuting between the two, with all the problems of transport, congestion and the ruin of the countryside of which I was speaking earlier.
What is the nature of the problem that confronts us? In the course of the next ten or fifteen years we shall have very great pressure from the urban areas for more living space and working space, first, for the increased population that will come from those areas, secondly, for the improved accommodation which is necessary following slum clearance, and, thirdly, because of the higher living standards of which I have spoken. So we have in these areas what we call the problem of overspill. How shall we find room for all these people? Originally, the development plans of the various councils allowed for an estimated 2 million people for whom living and working space would have to be found—2 million people who could not be housed and provided with work within those areas. But now there is every reason to think that the figure is substantially higher.
At first sight, this is a formidable task, but we must keep it in perspective. The problem can be exaggerated. It has been estimated that no more than about 600,000 acres of land would be required for this purpose in the next ton or fifteen years, which amounts to about 2½ per cent. of our existing rural land. That is not an impossible figure. We may all regret giving up any more of our countryside for housing, but it is inevitable, and 2½ per cent., in itself, is not a very sensational figure, which should cause us a great deal of concern. The real question is not finding the amount of land, but where the land is to be found and where the building is to take place.
The Minister has also suggested that the solution to the problem lies in building more flats—in building high—in the cities and towns. I do not deny that some relief may be obtained from this. I have no prejudice against flats, and much of the prejudice which used to

exist against them is disappearing, but the cost of building high is itself very high. It will certainly cost the Government a good deal in subsidies and, beyond a certain stage, it becomes prohibitive. Secondly, many people do not wish to live in flats. Thirdly, this still leaves a considerable transport problem, unless the flats are built fairly near the places of work.
But my biggest criticism of this solution is not that it is wrong, but that it is totally inadequate. According to my information, with the building of flats in all our largest cities, on the largest conceivable scale, at the very most we should be able to cope with only a fraction of our overspill problem. Perhaps one-fifth of the people concerned would be rehoused.
What is the answer? I believe that it stares us in the face. Surely it is the building of more new towns, well apart from the other urban districts. We have had a great success in the post-war planning of new towns. It is undoubtedly recognised as a matter in which we have a lot of experience. Why do not we do more of it? The Town Development Act, on which the Government have been relying, is not objectionable in principle, but it is not producing the results. It is far too slow and cumbersome. To leave the unfortunate Birmingham Corporation to negotiate on its own to get some of its overspill taken up by 50 or 60 different towns—as it has tried to do—is simply hopeless. We can only feel sorry for the Corporation.
By all means let us keep the Act on the Statute Book. We have no objection to it. But it is not enough; what we need is initiative by the central Government, as we had it before, when the decision to build the earlier new towns was made. The solution to the machinery problem at that time was the right one. The best way of proceeding is to set up new town corporations. We now have people with considerable experience in this matter, whose services could easily be used.
That brings me to another powerful argument in favour of this solution. As the existing new towns develop, and as the corporations' functions are taken over by the New Towns Commission, we shall have a number of people whose services will no longer be required in


the towns where they were working. Instead of wasting their experience why should we not employ them in working for the corporations we set up to build new towns?
The second powerful argument in favour of this solution is the fact that even under the right hon. Gentleman's present legislation the land acquired for new towns can be bought at existing use value and not with the development added in. Therefore, we can have an extension of public ownership without vast profits being made by speculators.
Quite apart from this, some action must be taken to deal with the problem of land prices. I admit that it is much more difficult to deal with today than it was a few years ago, and it will certainly be much more expensive to deal with, whatever we do. In essence, if the land remains in private ownership there is the problem of imposing, in some form or other, a tax or charge—call it what you will—on the unearned increment or the capital profit made by the owners of that land as the development takes place, and siphoning off from them and back to the community the profits they make simply as a result of community development.
There are many ways of doing this. We could have a capital gains tax, which, in any case, we believe to be a just and fair tax, generally. But we could not oppose a special arrangement in regard to land. There are certain distinctions to be drawn between the ownership of a site and the ownership of shares. We could introduce a revised development charge. I am disposed to agree that the procedure laid down by the 1947 Act suffers from various weaknesses, but I do not agree that the principle of that Act was wrong. If the Minister prefers it he could have another look at the Uthwatt Report. That also proposed a periodic betterment levy on all privately owned land as its value went up. Again, the profits would be siphoned back for the benefit of the community.
But the Uthwatt Report contained another proposal, which, to my mind, still stands out as one of the most important ever made, namely, that public ownership should be automatic as development became due. It proposed that local authorities—and I do not mind

if it is the Government instead, or some other authority—should have the right to purchase land at its use value before development takes place. I make no bones about it; I have always regarded the case for the public ownership of urban land, or land about to be built upon, as exceptionally strong.
If, in all our major cities, one hundred years ago, the municipalities had bought up all the land in a belt of 10 miles around, what an immense revenue they would now be receiving. What an addition the rents would be to local government finances. Why should not they have those? Why should we allow all this to go to private individuals? Certainly they can be compensated at the time, but for the future the community should ge the rise in value.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by "existing use value" before development takes place? Does he suggest that there should be two prices for a piece of land which is zoned for building in an existing town plan, but not actually built on at the moment—namely, one price if a private person buys and another price if a public authority buys?

Mr. Gaitskell: I said that all land should be in this category. The simplest answer is to refer the hon. Gentleman to the Uthwatt Report. If the hon. Gentleman has not read it, I suggest that he does so now. That is what I was referring to.
Before I sit dawn I must briefly mention one other problem. There has been a great deal of discussion lately about the problem not only of developing undeveloped land, but of the redevelopment of city centres. Such bodies as the Town and Country Planning Institute and the Civic Trust have taken a great interest in this. It is generally agreed that the present situation as regards the development of city centres is profoundly unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory for the simple reason that development takes place piecemeal by private developers. Local authorities' plans are, for this purpose, too general, and, even when they are more specific, with the present negative powers available to them it is impossible to get them carried out.
The lesson, which all these bodies without exception have drawn, is that


there should be positive Government planning in some form or other—whether it is local authority or through some other authority is another matter—to ensure a proper, harmonious and, one would hope, beautiful development. It agreed, also, that there must be for this purpose unified ownership of the sites. I cannot see why the Government should not encourage local authorities to buy up the sites in these redevelopment areas. I am sure that unless they do that there is very little chance of getting adequate and proper planning carried out.
We are told that there is a financial problem. We are told, indeed, that that is the reason why local authorities are not able or are unwilling to do this. I am told, for instance, that the Minister frequently refuses them permission to borrow in order to buy the sites. If Mr. Cotton can borrow to buy the sites and make a lot of money out of it, why should not local authorities be able to borrow?

Dr. Barnett Stross: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. Cotton is a special case? No private developer in this country is rich enough to buy a site big enough to do the job properly?

Mr. Gaitskell: I agree. That is true. However, local authorities have an advantage over Mr. Cotton, as my hon. Friend will agree. They are permanent bodies. They can go in for longer-term investment. This is exactly what public authorities should be doing.
I know that it has been suggested in some quarters that, instead of local authorities, some planning corporation should be set up on the lines of the new towns development corporations to do this job. I do not rule that out entirely, and I can see that there may be advantages. It may be thought that these bodies would be more likely to produce better plans, and so on, but I am somewhat prejudiced against them. It is far better that the elected representatives of the people, in their localities, should make the plans and carry them out, and develop in that way a civic pride and interest in a way in which an outside body could not.
I agree, however—I must be frank about this—that we need to ensure from the centre that better advice from architects and planners—not only local ones,

either—should be available to councils in carrying out their developments. The various professional institutes can play a very useful part in this.
Another change which I think is necessary is this. If we are to go in for new towns, which it seems to me is essential, and if we are to go in for a policy of dispersal, two things are necessary. First, the whole idea of the Board of Trade simply confining its activities to mopping up a little unemployment in this area or that is not enough. What we need from the Board of Trade is a policy, not only of encouraging employment in development areas but of actively discouraging congestion in already congested areas. In particular, the time has long since come when there should be established control, not only over the location of factories, but also over the location of offices.
The second change which will have to be brought about is that the present machinery for planning must be overhauled. It is doubtful whether the present authorities—county councils and borough councils—will be able to plan the dispersal of property, industry and building over a wide area. The time has come when there must be some regional planning bodies.
It is no use trying to plan separately housing on the one side, employment on another, and roads on another. They must be brought together. They must be treated as a whole. Someone in Whitehall has to be thinking not only of these problems as they affect the various regions, but as they affect the whole nation. I do not go so far as to say that we need an elaborate and carefully worked out national plan, but somebody in the Government should be thinking about the broad picture of our development over the next ten to fifteen years in all these fields.
The subject of this debate is far-reaching and complex, but it is also of immense importance to our whole future as a people. I do not pretend that the solution is easy, but what is absolutely clear is that the Government's policy of leaving it chiefly to private ownership and private development, to be lured on by the prospects of huge profits and subject only to a few negative controls, has failed utterly.
The time has come when planning must no longer be regarded as a dirty


word, when the central Government must accept their responsibilities for comprehensive and positive planning—planning of employment, transport and building—and when they must encourage and assist the public ownership of land for development and redevelopment and so make possible harmonious and beautiful cities. Only in this way can we avoid the ugliness, the sprawl and the congestion which again threaten us today. Only in this way can we preserve the natural loveliness of our countryside and provide a worthy heritage for the future.

4.18 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The Government wholly agree about the importance of the subject we are discussing today, but it is fortunate indeed that the party whose one contribution so far to land price questions has been the development charge is not in a position now to impose on the country an equally ill-judged experiment.
Each of the Conservative Measures to wipe out the legacy of development charge—the 1953 Act, the 1954 Act, and the 1959 Act—has been thoroughly approved by public opinion. [Laughter.] Yes, and the 1959 Act, which the right hon. Gentleman attacked was not opposed by him or his party on Second Reading. I had thought that not even the right hon. Gentleman would say, "Let us repeat the dose in which the last Labour Government put faith. Let us restore the development charge". Yet today the right hon. Gentleman actually criticised the Government for getting rid of it.

Mr. Gaitskell: Without putting something in its place.

Mr. Brooke: It was completely discredited as a remedy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Gentlemen say "No", let them say it to the country. Let them go round the country and say, "The Socialist Party stands for restoring the development charge." Let them see what will happen at by-election after by-election.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I appreciate the force of the Minister's challenge, but may I put a counter-challenge to him? Is he prepared, on behalf of the Conservative

Party, to go up and down the country saying not merely that the development charge was bad and unworkable and ought not to be replaced, but that the Government and the Conservative Party should make no effort whatever to retain or preserve for the community the land values created by the community?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member knows that his proposition would involve legislation and it is not my doing, but the choice of the Opposition, that we are having this debate on land values on the Vote when questions of future legislation would be out of order.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman then say why he referred to the reimposition of development charge?

Mr. Brooke: I did so because the right hon. Gentleman did so. I think that he set a very bad example. The truth, of course, is that the Opposition do not know what they really want to offer as an alternative to that discredited remedy. They do not want to commit themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does the right hon. Gentleman offer?"] Members of the Opposition do not want to say "Land nationalisation", because they are afraid of what the electorate would reply.
The right hon. Member sought to persuade the Committee that everything went well in this country from 1945 to 1951 and that everything has gone badly since. He sought to persuade the Committee of that, but, at one election after another, he has singularly failed to persuade the country of it. He asked the Government whether we would consider going back to the old Uthwatt proposals. He wanted public purchase of land suitable for development. So far as I could see, he wanted it at existing use value. That, of course, would mean buying it below the full market price. In other words, he wishes to throw over again the principle of the 1959 Act, which, so far as I know, was generally approved.
I am sure that public ownership, municipalisation, and words like that, are an attempt to make nationalisation of the land more palatable. It would, of course, do nothing at all to bring down land prices, but would simply bring into the market another potential buyer. He would have to define how far the purchase would go, where it would stop,


what land is suitable for development and redevelopment. It is not only the land allocated in plans which would have to be bought, but land suitable for development and "white land" not yet allocated.
In other words, it would come nearer and nearer to general nationalisation, but there was no sign in the speeches that the right hon. Member has made on this subject that he has thought out these matters. It would be a colossal financial transaction. I should have thought that a Leader of the Opposition who is a former Chancellor of the Exchequer would have addressed himself to the effect of that on the economy before advocating it as a means of dealing with this very real problem of land values.
If the right hon. Gentleman is taking the view that it is possible for public authorities to borrow unlimited sums to buy up unlimited areas of land, I advise him that before he puts that before the country he should take the measure of the effect on the monetary and economic position of the country. In any case, I doubt whether public opinion would stand for the vast bureaucratic machine that would be needed for all these miles and miles of land suitable for development and redevelopment. Indeed, I am quite sure that we would not now have so prosperous a country, if years ago, a machine like that had been created to get its grip on this land.
Of course, the Committee will have noticed that the Uthwatt solution, which the right hon. Member mentioned, was a solution which the Government of which he was a member rejected in 1947 when they might have adopted it. I do not think that this is the time to go back to Uthwatt. Of course, values rise in places where people would like to go to live. There is nothing strange about that. There is nothing economically unusual about that. One cannot wave away the market forces. Every hon. or right hon. Member opposite who, since the war, has bought a house in London or the Home Counties will find, if he decides to sell it, that he will get a much higher price for it than he paid for it.
The profit that he makes he will call unearned increment and, if he is a loyal Socialist, he will hand that over to the local branch of the Labour Party. Certainly after the speech that we have just

heard, it would be entirely immoral for him to keep for himself. The right hon. Member, my constituent, might well like to offer that, as evidence of his Socialism, to the town ward of the Hampstead Labour Party. I expected, when the 1959 Bill was going through, that there might be strong Opposition pressure for some kind of betterment relief. That pressure did not develop, but, in the Second Reading debate on that Bill, I remember pointing out that the theoretical case for a betterment levy—which might be strong—runs up against a whole series of practical questions, to which no one has yet seen practical answers. So, if anyone tries to say that all would have gone well had there been a betterment levy, I simply challenge him with those questions, which are already in HANSARD.
I notice that measures which some people have been advocating to take the profit out of land speculation would do nothing to reduce the price of land. I shall explain. It would have the reverse effect. Any kind of levy on the profits of land sold for development would have its effect in discouraging people from selling, so less land would come on the market. The commonsense remedy for high prices is to try to bring more land on the market, and that is exactly the course which the Government are pursuing.

Mr. S. Silverman: Look at the results.

Mr. Brooke: I shall show the Committee that we are taking this whole matter of high land prices very seriously indeed.

Mr. Harold Davies: Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)
rose—

Mr. Brooke: The Leader of the Opposition was allowed to deploy his case without interruption. I am sure that the Committee will show me the same courtesy.
In essence, high land prices are unavoidable in a prosperous country of limited size unless one allows building everywhere. But they cause a great deal of anxiety and difficulty. That makes it all the more important to get down to bedrock and to handle the problem in the right way, not the wrong way.
What we have been doing in the Ministry for a long time is to make constant reviews of future population trends


for the whole country and for each region of the country, and also of the prospective numbers of separate households, because that is even more important from the housing point of view than the population figure.
We advise local planning authorities of the latest and best estimates of these and other factors so that they can have all this up-to-date information available to them when they are revising their development plans, or deciding whether the amount of land allocated in their area for housing is too little, too much, or just right. We meet the authorities and discuss with them the implications for their planning of all the detailed information we provide.
Taking England and Wales as a whole, there is ample land allocated for housing purposes in development plans for years ahead. It may not necessarily be in the areas most sought after. It may not all be in the market. Some of it may be owned by people who do not want to see it developed at once; they may want to go on farming it for a time. Or it may have been bought up by builders in advance of their immediate needs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sure that the Opposition, in their ignorance, believe that it would help the building industry to live from hand to mouth and never to have any land in reserve, but that really is nonsense. The building industry cannot properly organise its work if it cannot see any land ahead in reserve for its building operations.
Of course, it is quite true that the terms on which land could be bought compulsorily before the 1959 Act bad an artificial effect on land transactions. Buying in advance of building need was discouraged by the risk of having the land compulsorily bought from one at a fraction of its value. In that way the 1959 Act has removed an artificial limitation. That Act was—I remind the Committee again—supported in principle by all parties in the House of Commons because the warping effect of the previous law had become so unfair and unjust. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that it had become so unfair and unjust with the passage of years—[An HON. MEMBER: "Through the Government's mistakes."]—but there is no truth what

ever in any allegations that the total amount of land in the country allocated for building is inadequate.
There is no need for some form of central independent inquiry into future housing and building needs, as I have seen suggested. The problem is essentially local and not national. There are local shortages, not national shortages. In most parts of the country, outside the tentacles of the big prosperous cites and other places along the coast or elsewhere that are particularly attractive to builders, there has been no unusual rise in land values.
I keep myself informed about this and I get regular reports from the Valuation Office, who are the people who know. There is no mystery at all why land prices in certain areas have gone high. It is because we are determined to preserve green belts and not to allow any more of the coastline to be ruined, and it is also because, under a Conservative Government, ordinary people are better off than they have ever been before. To buy a new house or bungalow with a garden and go to live in it used to be a remote hope for millions of people who now, thanks to Conservative policies, are finding their hopes and dreams coming true. The right hon. Gentleman, at the beginning of his speech, spoke of the brighter hopes for the years that would follow the war. The hopes of home ownership were never brightened until the Conservatives came to power.
The Government will not let the green belts go. I advise the people who are still trying to detect loopholes or weaknesses in what I have said about the firmness of our green belt policy to give up their faithlessness, because the green belts are to stay. There is no doubt that the existence of a green belt tends to raise land prices on either side of the belt, especially on the inner or urban side. There is equally no doubt that if a city like London, that is encircled by a green belt, remains prosperous, a time is bound to come when there is virtually no open undeveloped land left for building in the urban or suburban areas which the green belt surrounds.
I assume that it is common ground among all of us that we shall not let parks and playing fields go just because there is a shortage of building land. We have to allow, too, for all the land


demanded by new and widened roads to cope with modern traffic. So it is necessary to look not only to the land on the urban side, but also to the land beyond the green belt. There is no intention, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, of just repeating urban sprawl on the other side. Any development there will be under close planning control. Prices tend to rise on the far side of the green belt, despite the distance out from the centre, because all the green belt land is sterilised from building.
The very essence of a green belt is that it is a stopper. It may not all be very beautiful and it may not be all very green, but without it the town would never stop, and that is the case for preserving the circles of land around the town. Generally speaking, it is not true that values of land beyond the green belt are rising because not enough land there has been allocated to housing, so that there is an artificial scarcity. The land Values have been rising because land there which was not interesting to builders until lately is now becoming interesting, owing to the dwindling of the amount of undeveloped land with development potential nearer to the centre of the city.
Beyond the green belt, open country may stretch for miles, but that is not to say that to bring down prices anyone should be allowed to build in it where-ever he likes. There is danger in allocating too little land beyond the green belts for building. There is also danger in allocating too much, or allocating it too quickly, because that might only recreate the sprawl, just as the right hon. Gentleman says, so that we find that the better agricultural land is being built on before the less good land.
We must never forget, in all this very difficult problem of land prices and values, that there are 50 million of us living on a small island where we have no land at all to waste. It is true that at present only about one-tenth of the whole land surface of England and Wales is built up or used for roads or railways, or the like. But the increase in population, as well as the inescapable demands of the modern world—wider roads for more cars, more power stations, more industrial plant and more factory space per man employed—all these mean that before the end of the

twentieth century that 10 per cent. of land which is built on may be 12 per cent., if not more.
We have to plan ahead to see where that extra land can be found. We need to try to ensure that good agricultural land is kept and that, as far as possible, the land that is taken first is the land least valuable for farming. That is one obvious reason why it would be wrong to release great tracts of land beyond the green belts for building purposes far in advance of building need.
I have found it rather intriguing to read speeches and letters to the newspapers lately suggesting brightly that it is high time the Ministry started doing this or that. Some of them have been excellent suggestions, but we had thought of them first and are doing them already. The crux of the whole land problem is to make sure that artificial land scarcities do not arise around towns through any wrong judgment of the amount of land which could reasonably be used for building.
There is no avoiding natural land scarcity when an area is fully developed. One has only to think of Westminster, where we are, or of Lambeth, across the river. The supply of open land for building in Westminster and Lambeth ran out years ago. That is what I call natural unavoidable scarcity. What would be culpable would be an artificial scarcity caused by bad or out-or-date planning, or by neglect of suitable land. What the Government are doing, therefore, is not only to make sure that sufficient land is allocated for building in suitable places beyond the green belts, but also to encourage the fullest use of land within urban and suburban areas on the inner side of the green belts.
In the first place, the responsibility in all this, of course, lies with the planning authorities. Each planning authority is required by law to review its development plan every five years. Of course, it need not wait for that; it can put forward amendments to the development plan at any time for my approval. There is now a steady flow coming into my Ministry of five-yearly reviews, further town maps and ad hoc amendments of development plans. The planning authority marries all the local knowledge which it has on local needs and trends


with the national and regional information which is supplied to it by my Ministry about population growth, the increasing number of separate households, and so forth.
It is true that the 1947 Act is based on counties and county boroughs as the planning areas, but I am quite certain that these matters need to be looked at on a regional as well as on a county basis. This is just what the Ministry has been doing. On top of our discussions with individual planning authorities, we are adopting a policy of regional conferences of central and local government officials. All this is already in hand. This of course, is specially important and necessary in making sure that there is coordination and a common understanding between one planning authority and another and that the whole problem of outward migration and overspill movements is looked at realistically as between different planning authorities.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am very much obliged to the Minister for giving way. I am not trying to make a cheap point. Some of us are worried about the very matter he has mentioned. In certain areas corruption is taking place. In some instances, there are previews of the maps and planning is breaking down. I know of it, but cannot prove it. [Laughter.] It is all very well to laugh, but many of us know of this corruption. What safeguards can we devise? I know it is very difficult, but I beg the Minister to devise, at this difficult time, some kind of safeguard to prevent the corruption which is taking place in many parts of the country.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that every one of us, whether in central or local government, would do everything in our power to exclude corruption of that kind. If he has any evidence of it it is important that he should bring it to the fore. Really, to make a charge like that in general, vague terms in Parliament is not right unless he is prepared to support it with further evidence.
The hon. Gentleman can certainly rest assured that all the influence of all Government Departments would be wholly against that kind of thing. Indeed, one reason why I should be very chary of mentioning any particular places in my

speech is that I certainly do not intend by anything I say in the House to indicate anything that speculators or others might hitch on to.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: The Minister has said that local or planning authorities are suggesting new plans. In areas like that of the London County Council, which is a very large planning authority, have there been any proposals to alter the present plans?

Mr. Brooke: The London County Council is carrying out its statutory duty. This year, it has submitted to me its quinquennial review. The public inquiry into the objections to that is to be held later in the year. The machinery as a whole is working all the time. The right hon. Gentleman's intervention shows, I think, that a great many people fail to appreciate that the process of planning is a continuous one. It is not just the approval of a development plan at one point in time and then a complete absence of movement for five years until a review of the plan is due.
Before the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) interrupted me, I was speaking about overspill which, as we all appreciate, is important in the matter of arrangements between different authorities. There are only five or six cities in the whole of England which have major overspill needs. I have recently held meetings with representatives of three of them, London, Birmingham and Liverpool. My aim is that, within the next year, we shall get definitely settled how each of the large overspill needs is to be met.

Mr. Frank Allaun: And Manchester.

Mr. Brooke: Manchester is another, but Manchester has its plans for developing at Westhoughton. I am seeing representatives of Newcastle-upon-Tyne during the next few days.
I would not rule out the idea of development corporation machinery for a major town expansion scheme if the local authorities wanted that. I do not rule out the idea of other new towns, though I think that the search that the London County Council made recently shows how hard it is to find a fresh site suitable for a completely new town as distinct from an expansion of existing


towns. It is easy for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest the idea of more and more new towns as a complete solution, but he never addressed himself, in his speech, to where these new towns should go. I understand that the London County Council looked at about 70 sites before settling upon Hook, a site which was, in due course, bitterly criticised on other grounds.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Minister says that he would not rule out development corporation machinery. Would he rule out new town financing under the Act?

Mr. Brooke: I rule out nothing here, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must appreciate the problem. If there is an existing town which is to be expanded it would be wrong to impose the development corporation machinery on the expansion of that town unless one were quite sure that all the local authorities concerned accepted that they could not do the job and that it must be done by an external authority. I do not think that those who believe that there is a great future in the development corporation machinery here in expanding towns have fully measured the amount of friction there might be between the corporation and the local authorities.

Mr. Mitchison: The Minister has not answered my question. Are the Government prepared to find the money for a new town in a proper case?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, certainly. I was not at all unwilling to say so. I made it perfectly clear that I did not rule out the idea of other new towns. The Government would be willing to find the money for a new town, but it is no good talking about it in general terms of new towns.
If one is thinking about a new town, one must find a suitable site, a site where industry will go and where people will go. If that can be discovered, then—it all depends upon the merits of the case—the Government would be perfectly prepared to consider whether the new town machinery was the right instrument for development.

Mr. Albert Evans: Do I understand the Minister to say that, as a result of consultations now going on, he, hopes to formulate, in about

a year, plans for the solution of the overspill problems of some of the big cities?

Mr. Brooke: I am in consultation with one after another of the local authorities of the big cities and I hope that, together, we shall work out plans that will afford, over the years, a solution for their overspill problems. I met Birmingham recently. I have set on foot conferences with planning authorities all round Birmingham and we are to try to work out there how the very serious overspill problem of Birmingham can be met. There is no one solution for this. We must look at each case on its merits and against its own geographical background.
Migration trends from one region to another can never be forecast with certainty. I think that no political party, at any rate until today, favoured the direction of industry. The right hon. Gentleman—I took down his words—spoke of "planning the dispersal of industry". What does he mean by that? Is it just a vague and abstract phrase, or does he mean seriously that industry ought to be directed to different places? I cannot conceive that he does.

Mr. Gaitskell: Surely the right hon. Gentleman should try to keep the debate at a rather higher level. Does not he now know that when we built the new towns in the south of England and elsewhere industry was dispersed into them, and that that is what we mean by the dispersal of industry?

Mr. Brooke: Industry went into them in due course, and when the Conservative Government came to power in several of those new towns considerable anxiety was felt as to the likelihood of their attracting sufficient industry. But it would be quite useless to try to make industries go to places where they could not prosper and hold their own with their competitors from overseas.
If one could foresee all the economic trends and developments for fifty years ahead, no doubt one could work out centrally a tidy national plan showing exactly where all the new houses ought to be built for the rest of this century. This is precisely what a country like ours, which lives by export trade, cannot do. What the Government can do in influencing regional trends is to hold back further growth of industry in the


highly prosperous areas where pressure on land is heaviest. Look at the motor firms which are going to Scotland, to Merseyside and to Cardiff, because my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade refused them I.D.C.s to expand in Luton and Birmingham and elsewhere, and so accentuate the pressures round those places.
It is prosperity which has raised land values, but it is also prosperity which makes attainable a better distribution of employment throughout the country. That is the sort of remedy we want for overstrain whether it be local or regional. People seem to forget that the drift of the population towards London and the Midlands in these days, about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, is only a fraction of what it was in the days between the wars.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of getting offices decentralised from London to the suburbs and the new towns. I thoroughly agree with him, and when the London County Council submitted its development plan the Government amended it so as to allow for less office building in the county of London and more house building instead. I know that the L.C.C. now accepts that as right, and is cooperating to the full in that policy.
But we cannot control offices and office building by the development certificate procedure in the same way as factory building, if only because factories are built to the order of the firms which are to occupy them whereas a great many office buildings are not. They are built speculatively to let to tenants. It makes an essential difference. One might have to say that there was to be no more office building in a certain area, but then where should we get with our development of city centres, to which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee attach so much importance?
I am doing all I can to get office employment moved out of London so as to cut down travelling, but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that what he proposes would do nothing at all to reduce the price of land on the periphery. If anything, it would do the opposite. I have looked at the question of the control of office development very carefully and if anybody imagines that one can apply the development certificate

process easily to office building, as one does apply it to factory building, he will soon find what substantial and radical differences there are between the two cases.
May I come back to what I was referring to just now—the flexibility of development plans? I should like to tell the Committee how the review of a county development plan goes forward. I will take an actual current case in a county affected by rising land values, but I will not mention names for the reasons which I gave just now.
First of all, my Ministry furnished information derived partly from the Registrar General and partly from migration studies about population trends and numbers of households and so forth. The county council married all that with its own local knowledge and arrived at probable population figures for 20 years ahead. Then the council decide provisionally where to allocate land in various parts of the county to meet the whole needs of this additional population for the next 20 years. Now it is discussing with all concerned the agricultural, industrial and other problems involved and is keeping in touch informally with my Ministry. The final step will be for the planning authority to submit formal proposals to me for the amendment of its development plan.
This is the way in which we shall get the right pieces of land selected for housing development with proper regard for communications, agriculture and water supplies and all else which has to be taken into account. I know of areas which, on a map, look ideal for more building, but in one of these places no more houses ought to go up until a big new sewage works is finished, because the existing system is overloaded. In another place there ought to be no more house building until a great new reservoir, now under construction, is ready. That is what wise planning means. It cannot be done by looking vaguely at a map and thinking that it would be nice to build here or there or in another place. The fact is that we in the Ministry have most cordial and close relations with planning authorities in these reviews which are going on the whole time and, as I have said, I have now extended it to regional forecasts as well.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This seems to me a most important point which goes right to the root of what the Minister is trying to say. He has been referring to increased amenities and essential planning. Who pays for the amenities, the sewerage, the roads and all the rest of it? And who gets the enhanced price of the land sold because of this?

Mr. Brooke: At the moment I am seeking to explain how this review of development plans is done. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if my speech is rather long-drawn-out. I have given way for a number of interruptions. What I am seeking to give the Committee as a basis for today's important debate is an accurate account of what is going on at the present—

Mr. James Callaghan: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would answer my right hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Brooke: Certainly I will answer the question. Every piece of land which has to be bought for the various purposes is bought under the 1959 Act. I have said that land values have been increasing and so, of course, has the wealth of the community that has built up in these areas which are developed. I am not receiving complaints from the county councils. It was the County Councils Association which was strongly in favour of the 1959 Act being put on the Statute Book. Because I think it would be of service to the Committee, I am now seeking to describe, in as objective a way as I can, the actual steps taken between my Ministry and the planning authorities to review the use of land, to detect the prospective demands for land and so forth, and to make sure that sufficient land is allocated for the various purposes for which it is needed.
The most up-to-the-moment example I can quote of how my Ministry and the planning authorities work together is over the Tyneside Green Belt. Tyneside is another area which has urgent need for expansion. In 25 years' time, or thereabouts, areas in South Northumberland where mining has ceased will become stable, so the experts say, and suitable for building; but in that 25-year interval we must see that building is not brought to an end through lack of sites.
It seemed to us at the Ministry, on the information available to us, that the planning authority was under-estimating the needs for housing land over that 25-year period. Accordingly, within the last few days, I have sent the planning authority the modifications that I propose on that account, with a map, so that they can be published and any objections can be expressed.
I quote that as an example of the active collaboration that exists between my Ministry and the planning authority, each of us contributing our knowledge which, together, should help to provide a proper pattern of land allocation—

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: As the Minister is now talking about collaboration with planning authorities, will he explain to the Committee why he has deliberately refused to allow the Newcastle-upon-Tyne city planning authority to build houses at Hill Head but gave permission to private enterprise? There is also the other scheme where the local authority has been refused permission to go ahead with building, and the land has been handed over to private building.

Mr. Brooke: The reason why, in certain cases, I have taken that decision is that in those cases I find that the local authority has plenty of building land in hand for a number of years ahead whereas there is a shortage of private enterprise land. What I was explaining just now is that I have taken special steps to see that there is not a shortage of building land over the next 25 years as, I think, there might have been had the Tyneside green belt been drawn as it was previously proposed—

Mr. Popplewell: Mr. Popplewell
rose—

Mr. Brooke: No, I cannot give way again.

Mr. Popplewell: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. The Minister says that in that particular locality in Newcastle which I have just quoted there was plenty of land available, but the right hon. Gentleman and his Department know perfectly well that there is absolutely no land available in Newcastle.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Brooke: It may be that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his speech later in the debate.
I do sometimes hear complaints that there is only one or two years' supply of land altogether allocated for housing in one place or another. I must say that most of those complaints usually turn out to be based on information that is incomplete or not quite up to date, but I am always ready to have an on-the-spot study made of particular places where it is alleged that insufficient land is allocated to building.
My intention is to make quite sure that all planning authorities everywhere are alerted to the need. I have it in mind to send out a fresh circular emphasising again the importance of whether they have enough land allocated for housing and other development, and also whether any town maps need to be reviewed from this angle in advance of the rest of the development plan.
I must say that I anticipated that we would have a debate on this subject during the course of the month, so I decided not to send out the circular until after this debate so that, if any fresh points came up in it, I could include them. I hope that that course commends itself to the Committee. I can assure the Committee that no time has been lost by this because, as I have already explained, conferences and discussions have already been going on with all the authorities most concerned.
To illustrate that, I may say that in March of last year my Ministry sent a letter to local planning authorities in the Greater London area asking them to consider the allocation of more land for building beyond the green belt. Also, on the Ministry's initiative, the London and Greater London planning authorities are engaged at this moment on a fresh survey of land available, in the short-term, for residential development in the suburban fringes and in what we call the "islands" of the Green Belt. Then, within the built up area, too, the possibility of finding additional areas for development is continually being explored. The search will have been a very thorough one by the time it is finished.
There are not many large areas to be seen in London or Greater London but there are one or two. Croydon Airport is an example. The future use of that

is formally before me at the moment, so I must not comment on it at this stage, but I can certainly say that very careful consideration will be given to the planning authority's proposals.
Another case is Woolwich Arsenal. I shall be following up, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, the recommendation of the Hutchison Committee that Government storage occupying more valuable sites elsewhere might be moved to the Arsenal, thus releasing that other land for other purposes. With the urgent need for housing land not too far out from London, I intend to make sure, with the help of the planning authorities, that no land is wasted or overlooked.
Density proposals have, of course, to come before me formally as amendments to development plans. I think it quite possible that some densities in some places could be revised upwards, but let us remember that a density increase does not bring down values. Actually, it puts up the price of that land. People will pay more for land if a higher density of development is permitted. What it does is to keep down the need for more land elsewhere.
In order to preserve more of the countryside untouched, I am not prepared to approve of urban densities going to excessive heights at which the country lovers would never be willing to live themselves, but I am sure that there are places hitherto accustomed to nothing above about two or three storeys where we ought to see some high blocks, though, at first, they will probably be objected to locally.
In my circular, I shall remind the urban authorities of what they can quite properly do to secure more intensive use of land already developed. They can encourage more conversions of the larger houses into flats. For that, conversion grants are available. They can study how they can get older areas of low density building redeveloped really well to greater densities.
A high price for undeveloped land has its good effects as well as its bad ones. It encourages the best possible use of land, and it discourages the waste of it—and in the outward spread of many towns there has been prodigal waste of land in the past. When builders now find that they cannot get open land for


building in the area they want, and at the price they want to pay, that, more than anything else, is likely to turn their thoughts to buying up older property, demolishing it, and redeveloping the site. This is one of the crying needs of our time, but it will not be met as long as there is judged to be plenty of open land available which is easier and more attractive to develop.
I have heard it said that this sort of re-development is held up because local authorities still fix densities too low. Without prejudging whether or not that is true, I would remind developers that they have a right of appeal to me against density limits that they think too restrictive.
I say again that naturally land is bound to be scarce whenever an area is fully built up. My business is to see that there are no artificial scarcities, and that is what I am doing by the practical steps that I have described to the Committee. I do not believe that it could be done as well by any external independent body of inquiry. The national assessment is relatively easy. It is the assessment of all the local needs and trends that is difficult, and that, I am sure, could not be done more effectively than it is now being done by the interchange of information going on all the time between the planning authorities and my Department.
The only proviso that I would add is that it requires to be done on a regional as well as on a county basis, and that is what I am seeking to achieve by the regional conferences and discussions of which I spoke. I am determined to see that there is regional assessment and regional co-ordination, and that development plans, whether of counties or of county boroughs, are not considered in isolation from the whole region round about.
I want, finally, to remind the Committee of one cardinal fact which almost everybody seems to overlook. Even where the sharpest increases in land values have occurred, there is very little sign that prices are holding up development. People talk about a land famine. If they mean an actual land famine, how does that square with the fact that more than 20,000 more houses are under construction now than at this time last year?
I see no reason to doubt that more private enterprise houses will he completed in 1960 than in any year since 1938. If, on the other hand, those who speak about a land famine mean a land famine at some time in the future, then that is exactly what the Government intend to prevent by the detailed regional and local studies, and the practical actions based on those studies, that I have described and that are already in hand.

Mr. Mitchison: There is one point that I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman before he leaves the question of high prices. He said that they did not hold up building, but, surely, they hold up local authority building and put up the rents of council houses. Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of that?

Mr. Brooke: I have said that there are problems here. I know that they put up the costs to local authorities, but I am certainly not going to be led by the hon. and learned Gentleman into going back on the 1959 Act and restoring a position whereby local authorities are enabled to buy compulsorily land below its market value. Nor do I believe that a policy of that kind would have the slightest degree of support in the country as a whole.
What I have been explaining to the Committee at considerable length—I believe it is what the Committee would wish that I should do as I am speaking at the beginning of the debate—are the various steps which we are taking to make sure that adequate land is available. No power could prevent land prices from rising in a prosperous country where there is limited land. My business is to see that there is no artificial rise in prices through too little land being allocated for houses which are necessary and desirable.
That is what we are doing, and that is why I suggest that we do not panic or dash for quack remedies, that we use present trends as evidence that we must put land to full use and not waste it, and that we press on with careful forecasts and research and make absolutely sure that we keep all our development plans right up to date both regionally and locally.
Above all I suggest that we work with the market forces and seek to harness


them to serve national purposes, instead of acting like Canute's courtiers and the right hon. Gentleman, vainly telling the tide that it ought to turn and threatening to tax it if it does not.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I am very glad to have this opportunity of following the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I had feared at one stage that he might have departed to another office before this debate took place, because I saw a number of reports in the Press to the effect that he was being considered for the post of Foreign Secretary.' However, in view, I presume, of the right hon. Gentleman's diplomatic failures with the Welsh, it has been decided not to unleash him upon the world.
I think that the best description of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that Latin tag ex nihilo nihil fit, which, translated colloquially, means that out of nothing nothing fits. But it is no part of my case this afternoon to attack the right hon. Gentleman. That would really be reducing the great scheme of things to their fullest insignificance. Today we are discussing a more serious problem.
A few days ago, in reply to some Questions in the House, the right hon. Gentleman said in the course of his statement that it was his intention at all costs to preserve the free market in land. That statement is a direct contradiction in terms of the meaning of planning. When we accept the need for town planning we reject the concept of a free market in land. The issue that we are discussing today is the problem which arises when we accept the need for planning but still try to apply the principles of a free market. That is the central problem to which, I suggest, the Committee should address itself.
Town planning confers certain values on certain property and at the same time it restricts the value of other property. If we decide to build on one side of the town in the interests of the community and also decide, in the interests of the community, to preserve the green belt in another part of the town, then by virtue of that decision we confer, by a public decision, large increases in value on the areas designated as probable development areas. At the same time we restrict the values of the areas being

sterilised. This is the old classic problem of compensation and betterment.
The whole history of our town planning legislation in this country has been bedevilled by our chronic failure to overcome this difficulty. This was the reason for the failure of the 1932 Act. That was made perfectly clear by the Report of the Barlow Commission in 1940. Out of that Report, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) said, arose the Uthwatt Committee. The Report of that Committee remains the standard analysis of this problem.
The Committee made three major recommendations. First, the Uthwatt Committee proposed a periodical betterment levy. Secondly, it suggested that land should be divided into two values, the existing use value and the possible development value; and that the development value should be nationalised. Thirdly, in order to give effective implementation to the nationalisation of the development values, the Committee suggested that a global fund of compensation should be set up and that, at the same time, the physical machinery of acquisition of that land should be undertaken by the local authorities—so that all land that was taken for development, regardless of whether for public or private development, should be acquired automatically by the local authorities and made available to the public or private developer.
The Minister spoke just now of the need for builders to have land available for a number of years ahead. This is the way in which development land can be made available for builders a number of years ahead—by large-scale acquisition as was suggested by my right hon. Friend.
The Silkin Act of 1947 accepted much of the analysis of the Uthwatt Committee, but it proposed its own solution as far as the developments charges were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman said that we on this side of the Committee would not like to go round suggesting a reimposition of the development charges. The fact is that if those charges failed at that time—and this was recognised by everyone concerned with town planning—then the next logical step was to implement the Uthwatt Committee's recommendations for the physical acquisition of property.
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about going back to development charges, we say that we are not going back to them but may be going forward from them. There is no substitute, as far as this problem is concerned, other than facing the fact that when planning occurs there is inevitably a conflict between the public and the private interests and that when plans are published certain values inevitably accrue.
When the 1953 Bill was introduced by the present Prime Minister in December, 1952, a clear warning was given to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). He told the House exactly what would happen if the development charges were abolished and if nothing was put in their place. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes said:
The Minister's policy is giving freedom to the landowner to get as much as he can for something on which he has done nothing, at the same time giving no protection at all to the man who wants to do things, the man who wants to create some value."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 117.]
That is not a bad assessment, eight years ago, of the situation which has arisen as a result of the Conservative Party's legislation in 1952.
The Minister, the present Prime Minister, took a different view, and it is worth examining this because it gives one some idea of the superficial thinking that is involved whenever we come to consider this matter and hear speeches from the Treasury Bench. The present Prime Minister said:
There is nothing wrong that in those cases there should be a free market. It is said that the price of land to private buyers will rise and that, therefore, although we may be trying to encourage development, in the long run we may injure it. Of course, the price of land for development may rise in the first instance…but I trust that the price will not rise to the point which the development charge might have reached if we had maintained it as a permanent feature in the system.
Does the right hon. Gentleman still subscribe to that view? His predecessor went on to say:
…it is not so much the cost of the land which is the main worry, but the high cost of development, building, and all the rest.
Having heard my right hon. Friend's examples, does the Minister still subscribe to that point of view?
The Prime Minister went on to say:
But the problem arises, what about the land for private development? It is our firm intention that local authorities should, where necessary, arrange that this part of the estate should be acquired in the same way and made available to the private developer, The same will apply as necessary should the land be required for industry. Of course, if the landowner or his representatives do not ask more than moderate prices, it may not be necessary to have recourse to this weapon, but the fact that this power exists and will be exercised is an immense weapon to prevent exploitation. I am fairly confident that once this is fully understood, these provisions will have their effect upon the free market price. So much for the first lot of difficulties,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 1119–21.]
That was the present Prime Minister's assessment of the situation then. The present situation stems from the fact that we have had a lamentable failure to deal with compensation and development charge provisions. The planning provisions of the Silkin Act have been adhered to. We have had the removal of the balancing factors of development charges by the Macmillan Act, and thirdly, we have had the administrative lethargy of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
What is the answer to this problem? The first thing we have got to do, as my right hon. Friend said, is to go back to the Uthwatt Report and bring it up to date. The first suggestion that I would make is that we should have a new committee examining with urgency the original Report of Lord Justice Uthwatt to see where it still applies and where it is no longer relevant.
The second thing that we should do as an interim proposal is to implement the undertaking that was given by the Minister of Housing and Local Government of the day in 1952 that, where private landowners were exploiting the need of the community, the Government would use the sanction of public acquisition.
Thirdly, we should recognise that we must go much further in our control of the location of industry. My right hon. Friend spoke about control of office accommodation. The Minister explained how difficult it was to do this. Of course, all these problems are difficult, but the fact is that unless steps are taken along these lines we shall have in


London the greatest traffic jam in the history of the world.
There has been a suggestion by my right hon. Friend that we should hurry up the new town policy and the policy for expanding country towns. Since the Government have been in office, very little has been done in the implementation of the expanding country towns policy. A whole range of towns throughout England, Wales and Scotland could easily be expanded by a few thousand people and a few industries with very little increase in capital investment so far as public services are concerned. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about that as a matter of urgency? That is where he should be looking to see that land is made available for factories and housing.

Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman refers to these towns. Would he care to mention their names?

Mr. Donnelly: The Town and Country Planning Association submitted a memorandum to the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, mentioning thirty or forty expanding country towns which were ready for immediate development, another sixty or seventy which might be considered as probable, and another sixty or seventy which might be possible. If the right hon. Gentleman will study the memorandum in his own office files, no doubt he will be more useful to the Committee in his observations.

Mr. Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that these towns should be expanded against the will of the local authorities and against the will of the local inhabitants?

Mr. Donnelly: No, but the right hon. Gentleman really must study the report. The report was based on long consultations with the local authorities. I took part in some of these consultations. The local authorities themselves made the representations, and if the right hon. Gentleman cares to study the report he will see that these suggestions are largely at the request of the local authorities themselves.
The position at the moment is that something like 40 per cent. of the population of the British Isles lives on 4 per cent. of the land in the island. Unless we

get away from that situation by an urgent policy of decentralisation, we shall not be able to tackle the problem of rising land values around London and other big cities, whether we deal with the compensation and betterment problem or not.
The next thing we have got to do is to take another look at our transport system. If we have a transport system that is centred on London, funnelling people back into London as fast as we get them out of London, we shall inevitably get a continual increase in the growth of this vast conurbation here. The same is applicable to Birmingham, Manchester and Clydeside. It is absolutely essential that we should have a transport system which is geared to a decentralisation policy. We are nowhere near getting that today.
The final thing that my right hon. Friend said is that we have got to have another look at the borders of the planning authorities. It is not Ministry regional departments which are required; it is regional planning authorities themselves. The present boundaries of the planning authorities are quite inadequate for the great problem that is facing the country today.
There are two inescapable conclusions from this debate. If the industry of Britain is to function, if our people are to live happy and healthy lives, if agriculture is to exist and is to be safeguarded, and if other national resources are to be deployed, it is essential that we have planning. The second specific lesson to be learned from the debate is that the Conservative doctrine of free enterprise cannot work any longer in circumstances such as these, and the dilemma which faces the present Government is that they know this and are not prepared to admit it.

5.28 p.m.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) spoke about the lethargy of the administration of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I was reminded of a story about the Prince of Wales, as he then was, who was driving through the streets of south London in the 1920s, when someone was heard to call out, "There is one of the idle rich". At this, His Royal Highness


replied as quick as a flash, "Rich maybe, but idle—by heavens, no". If anyone should describe my right hon. Friend as lethargic it shows that he has paid very little attention to the administration of my right hon. Friend and his Department.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), in speaking about what he called the credit side of planning in the inter-war years, mentioned, rightly, I think, the new towns, but he failed to mention two factors which I think most of us, judging the matter dispassionately, would regard as omissions.
First of all, I would put the revitalisation of the countryside during the postwar years. Many of us remember the decaying country houses and the villages without work and without hope. These villages have been expanded, with the thriving village life of post-war years. Country houses have been occupied, many to some useful purpose, being used as centres for culture, education and business. We recognise that one of the achievements of post-war planning has been the revitalisation of country life in Britain. Secondly, we recognise the general acceptance, not least by planning authorities, of the idea of the green belt.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition blamed the Government for everything that had gone wrong with planning since the end of the war. What is the true picture? Mr. J. R. James, deputy technical planning adviser to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, has told us that in every year since the last census in 1951, 200,000 more people were living in England and Wales. He has told us how this has astonished and surprised even the experts. The most recent population projection is that during the next fifteen years there will be an addition of about 3 million people to the population of England and Wales, which is almost double the figure allowed for in the development plans when they were first drawn up in 1948.
Moreover, immense pressure for living space has been engendered on the one hand by the rising population of these islands and on the other hand by the demands of an affluent society, for which the Government, which I have the honour to support, certainly cannot escape some responsibility. These combined pressures upon land have led to uneven pressures

in different parts of the country, and particularly is the pressure noticeable in certain parts of the Midlands, especially the west Midlands, and the south-east segment of Britain, and in particular in land within a radius of forty miles from Charing Cross.
The effect of these pressures is upon areas of land which are very much restricted by the existing development plans, not through the fault of the planning authorities making their plans in 1948, because many of these pressures could not have been foreseen. But there is a limited area for housing development in the present development plans, and the immense pressure on it has inevitably given rise to high prices.
The debate is about the use and prices of land, and I propose to deal with those two factors in that order. Dealing first with the use of land, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in his determination that—I quote his own words—
green belts, once properly established,
should remain, and, again quoting his words,
except in special circumstances…inviolate;
He continued,
proper provision must be made for development beyond the green belt."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1960; Vol. 626, c. 23.]
Here I come to my first real clash on planning matters with the Leader of the Opposition. If I understood his speech correctly, he regards the green belt as an agricultural girdle around a town, beyond that being open country. That is a conception which will not hold water in these areas of explosive pressure. I think that the lines on which local planning authorities ought to proceed in the areas to which I have referred, particularly in the south-east segment of Britain are that in these areas where pressure is strongest they should realise that it is no good merely providing scattered areas of land from which people will commute ten or twenty miles across the green belt into the towns to work. To do that will merely increase the cost and the daily frustration of getting to and from work and will worsen an almost intolerable traffic situation.
The solution should lie in what I shall call regional development. The present explosive expansion should be guided to


development areas beyond the established green belt, areas in which employment possibilities, in offices as well as in factories, can match the provision of housing, with existing small towns and communities as the focal point. The conception should be one of a city region, with the parent city at its heart, surrounded by the green belt, and beyond that green belt a cluster of satellite towns and expanded villages, each retaining its individual character and separated from its neighbours by open country.
Imaginative plans on these lines, providing for the release for development of large areas of white land at present unallocated in development plans, in and around towns and villages, where services and communal facilities, churches, schools, cinemas, shops and other facilities are already available, could do much by increasing the supply of developable land to reduce its price.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I would have great sympathy with what the hon. Member is saying, if it were true. Is he not aware that the biggest problem in the South-East today is that even in areas which are not likely to be developed for some time, speculators are buying land at today's highest prices in order to be ready for the time when the land becomes ripe for complete development? The problem, therefore, is that if we release any more land it will immediately be bid up in price to present-day heights, unless, of course, the market is flooded.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member is bowling at me on my own wicket. He may not know, but I am a chartered surveyor in daily practice in the City of London, and I am dealing daily with these problems in the Home Counties and beyond. I do not think that there is this hoarding of land. I will tell the hon. Member what is happening. It is not that the speculators are buying up land but that firms of builders, mainly large firms of builders, who have the means with which to do it, are buying land in advance because they must have a stock of land. Because of the shortage of available land they are turning to the white land—that is to say, land which is unallocated in the development plans

at the moment for any development. They are buying white land in the hope that in the next review or the review after that it will be made available for building. To that extent, therefore, white land is fetching something like building prices.
I now want to turn to the question of land prices. Having regard to the immense pressures engendered by the demands of an affluent society, in conditions in the parts of the country with which I am dealing virtually of full employment, upon the limited area of land which is available in those areas for development at present, land prices are not unduly high. The danger, I think, lies not in the level of land prices, but in the relationship of those prices to the prices obtainable for almost comparable and even adjoining land which is denied the benefit of planning permission.
This is where the real danger lies. The growing and often immense disparity between the value of land which has planning permission for building and land which is denied permission for development by the fiat of the planner because it happens to be in a green belt gives rise to three undesirable features.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Gentleman has most lucidly explained why building land is so costly. Will he tell us who it is who makes it costly? Is it not the community which wants to live there and, therefore, ought it not to share in the burden of the rising price of land?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I was coming to that point, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I shall deal with it.
I should like to point to what I believe are three very undesirable results of the disparity between the price of land with development permission and the price of land without it. First, there is the obvious one that it gives rise to very great injustices between one individual and another. No one can possibly deny that. Secondly, since this is done in the name of planning, it tends to bring all planning into disrepute. I do not like that because I want to see planning respected and effective. Thirdly—and this is the point made by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), who is not in his place—whatever may be said


about the charge, if it was a charge, made by the hon. Gentleman, this great disparity leads to immense and serious tensions and temptations upon all those who have to administer planning in the county and other planning offices.
The hon. Gentleman used the word corruption". It is not a word which I like, hut, not to put too fine a point on it, there is a great danger of corruption taking place. I have not heard of any instances, but, upon my soul, I wonder that we have not had the most explosive instances of this. I look at the newspaper almost with trepidation every thy to see where things are going to break first. We are putting the most unfair pressures upon young men of my profession in planning offices up and down the country. A fortune may be made by a man who can secure the benefit of planning permission, but a fortune may be lost because that benefit is moved one field away from that land. That is not a situation which I can tolerate without saying something about it.
These factors lead me to suggest that we ought now to consider the introduction of some sort of device to redress the balance between the price of land obtained by an owner who can secure planning, permission and the price obtained by a man who is denied planning permission by a decision of the planning authority.
The hon. Member for Pembroke mentioned the Uthwatt Report. If Uthwatt's theory of shifting values is to be accepted—and I think that it is generally accepted in the Committee and in the country—the development value of land which is refused development permission is not destroyed but is shifted to other land, thus enhancing the value of that other land. In my mind, that is basically the justification for suggesting that those who benefit from a shift of value to their land should return some part of that benefit to owners from whom development value has been removed by the decision, I was about to say the arbitrary decision, of the planning authorities.
Since at the choice of the Opposition this debate is taking place on a Vote, I am prevented, if I understand things correctly, from setting out details of a moderate ad valorem duty which I should

like to see levied on the vendors in all future sales of undeveloped land, the proceeds of which would reimburse the Exchequer for the compensation paid to owners of land sterilised against building. In view of the present demand for building land and the prices which that building land is fetching where planning permission is available, I do not think that anyone could claim that an ad valorem duty of about 10 per cent. levied upon vendors would lead to hardship on anyone. A man in a hurry to catch a train does not grudge the small tip which, when he has secured his objective, he gives to the taxi driver and which he adds to his taxi fare. If such a duty were graduated, it would have the advantage that it would help to keep land prices down, but, in any case, it would provide a source from which owners aggrieved by a refusal of planning permission could be compensated in full upon a genuine sale, and only upon a genuine sale, of land for which they had been refused planning permission.

Mr. Donnelly: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument very closely. Without going into any question of legislation, could he tell the Committee how the tax which he proposes would not merely add to the price of land? Suppose that there was a piece of land which was the only place on which one could build and one either paid the money or just did not build.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not think that that instance would arise. There is always an alternative site. But, in so far as the moderate tax which I have in mind would be a graduated tax and would vary with the price per acre given for the land, it would have the effect of keeping prices down. I would welcome the opportunity to develop this further, but I realise that I cannot do so at present.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Will my hon. Friend explain exactly how he would divide the compensation? Would it be the field next to the one in question, or the field next to that, or a field ten miles away? Further, does not he think that a tax would only add to the cost of land?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I should like to explain, but, as we are on a Vote, it is difficult to explain the details


of what I should like to see done. The compensation would be paid to the man who is refused planning permission because his land happens to be in a green belt. That is the short answer. He would get compensation only if his land were in a green belt. I cannot see anything unfair about that.
Once that had been achieved—and I believe that until it has been achieved planning will continue to be unfair in its incidence and planners will be exposed to intolerable stresses—there would no longer be need for the retention of the liability to compensate owners who are refused planning permission to the limit of the unexpended balances of Part VI claims under the 1947 Act. This would go the way of development charges and other consequences of the ill-conceived provisions of the Silkin legislation.
I address myself particularly to my hon. Friends in this matter, because I know their feelings about it. I have not had the opportunity to develop the matter as I should like to have done. Whatever hon. Members may feel about the wisdom or the unwisdom of the proposals which I have outlined—sketchingly in view of the difficulties that the Committee faces this afternoon—I do not believe that there is any hon. Member who will not admit the validity of the proposition that the wide disparity between the price of land with planning permission and the price of land in the Green Belt gives rise to individual hardships and places temptation in the way of those responsible for planning permission which we ought, if possible, to remove. I believe that until we have solved this problem, planning in Britain will be tolerated but unpopular. I want it to be fair and acceptable to the ordinary men and women.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I do not intend to make a strongly political speech, because the brilliant speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has put as strongly and as clearly as anybody can the criticisms that are to be made on the political front against the Government's views on the whole question of land use and land values. There is not much that anyone can add to that except by

way of unnecessary elaboration and repetition.
I want to confine myself to one or two suggestions which the Government, even with their present views, might adopt to alleviate the situation. Before I come to that, however, I am bound to say that the real tragedy of the Minister's speech today was the partisan attitude which he took. I would have felt much greater respect for him had he come along to the Committee and said, "We in the Government quite admit that there is a frightful problem here. We admit that what has happened in the last ten years is that we have continued to restrict the supply of land, quite rightly, for planning reasons and have yet tried to carry on a free market with the supply limited. This has ended up in a famine situation in many areas and with people paying the price of the sheer shortage which planning has imposed upon us."
Had the Minister come to us honestly and admitted the seriousness of the problem which, on the one hand, the Labour Government did not solve in the Silkin Act and which, on the other hand, the Government have not solved with a free market—which is not capable of being a free market because the supply is limited—and had the right hon. Gentleman then told us what he would do to try to save the country from the results of this terrible dilemma, I should have felt much more respect for what he had to say.
The trouble was that the right hon. Gentleman made a partisan speech to bait the Opposition right from the beginning, justifying almost the very speculation at which the country grumbles. There was no apology for the high prices, no condemnation of them and no indication that the Government wanted to cure them. Under present-day conditions, that kind of attitude is quite unforgivable. Even The Times today said in its leading article that if the Minister came along with the sort of speech he has made it would be unforgivable. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done.
The Minister said that building was, after all, going on and high prices have not stopped it and he asked what there was to worry about. That is typical of his partisan approach. What I am worried about is that ordinary people who want to buy houses have been faced in


the last two years with an additional £500 to £1,000 on the price of a modest sized house. This is the problem to which the Committee should be addressing itself. It is no use hon. Members opposite merely telling us that the building is going on. The fact is that it is not going on for the people who cannot afford this excessive inflation in the price of their houses. They simply stay out of the housing market. We should be considering how to get and keep prices more within the reach of the man in the street and to get rid of this inflation, because tie rise in living standards is not at the moment fast enough to cope with the rising price of housing.
I have a dual interest in the problem, as I freely admit. First, as a Birmingham Member, I have an enormous wealth of evidence of what is going on in that great conurbation. The situation is fantastic. The town clerk has sent me figures, with which I do not intend to weary the Committee in detail. Whereas, however, in the early 1950s we were paying something like £500 to £2,000 an acre, Birmingham is now faced with anything from £5,000 to £10,000 an acre. Some of this has occurred in my constituency which is being built up and where prices are reaching astronomical heights.
My second interest is that as a director of a firm which is developing in the south-east of England, I have to handle land price problems every day. Before I left my house this morning, I was offered on the telephone land at £1,750 per plot, plus road charges, making a total of about £1,900, whereas I know that I would have bought those plots at £850 two years ago. That is £1,000 not to me as a developer, but on the price of a modest sized house which has to be built on the site.
Along the south coast, where my business occurs, one finds plenty of this sort of example. In Worthing, where the town is just about built up, 77 acres of what is simply part of somebody's farm has just been sold for £500,000. It is just a few fields on the edge of Worthing. Can anybody justify the impact that this has on the price of a small house?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I do not want to intrude on the hon. Member's private

business, but he has told the Committee about an offer that was made to him this morning. Does he feel willing to tell us whether he saw fit to buy the plot? If he replies "No", I shall respect his willingness to keep out of it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the relevance of this?"] This is not relevant, but it will form part of an argument which I propose to deploy later. This is not said intrusively.

Mr. Chapman: As a developer, I considered that to be a ridiculous price, and I was determined not to contribute more to the inflationary situation in that locality by buying at that price. I prefer to stay out of the market.

Mr. S. Silverman: Somebody else will buy it.

Mr. Chapman: As my hon. Friend says, somebody else will buy it. The tragedy is that values such as I expressed do not count; people have to go on building and there are so few plots available for them to buy.
Let me give another example. During the weekend, three building plots were offered to me for £4,500. Two years ago, or even one year ago, I would have bought them for £2,500. This is the sort of thing which we have to deal with in my business. The hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) is in exactly the same position. Our standards of living may be rising, but they cannot rise fast enough for ordinary people who buy their own houses to cope with that situation.
This problem will go on. We must not think that it is going to disappear. We now have people who tell us that we need to provide 200,000 houses a year for the next twenty years. In addition, we have 4 million houses which were built 80 years ago, and these have to be replaced, probably at a lower density than their present sites. If the standard of living goes on rising and more people want their own homes as opposed to living with their in-laws or whoever it is, and if the rise in the population continues—and it may go up 3½ million quite quickly—we shall need more land developed for ordinary housing purposes. Therefore, this problem is going to go on.
If I may now take the situation as I see it on the south coast particularly, I want to try to analyse it in two ways. We are facing a frightful situation on the south coast. This might be called England's "golden mile". Everybody in London now seems to have the idea that all they want is a bungalow down at Brighton before they retire, and this is now reaching a pitch of demand which has to be seen to be believed. It is true that the population is not moving rapidly at the moment, but as the standard of living rises it is moving more rapidly than it used to do. We are now building up towards the position in which, if the standard of living is doubled in 20 or 25 years, I hate to think what will happen on the "golden mile", roughly from Worthing to Eastbourne. This applies to any place in that area within an hour's reach of London, or in any similar area in any other part of the country. Even inland there are similar areas.
What can we do, even within the Government's present views? I do not want to be too partisan. First, we have got to get more land made available, and, secondly, to some extent, we have to try to abate the excessive price of land. I would say, first of all, that the great difficulty of the Minister's approach to the need for making more land available is the fact that he is not allowing or not insisting upon his own Ministry taking the proper initiative. He is leaving far too much to the local authorities, and merely co-ordinating the views of local authorities, instead of taking up these matters, as he should in my view, by going into certain areas, discussing the problem actively with the local authority and putting to that authority the point of view taken by the Ministry.
The Minister should say, "We see your problem in this locality, and your need of land in the next twenty years. We must examine with you your development plan on this area, and we must try—this cannot always be said publicly, but we have to do it somehow—to stop a local authority's parish pump politics in this matter. We have to see, in areas like this, where land is scarce and where people want to move in, that the best possible use is made of the

whole area within the next couple of decades before it is too late.
I will give an example of what I mean. First, the initiative. There are parts of this area which ought to be transferred from "white land" to land for housing purposes. What happens? There is a suggestion that six golf courses, all of which lose money, should be reduced to four, but nobody can agree which couple of golf courses should be sacrificed in order to build 400 houses on each of them. This need will not be satisfied by this method of parish pump politics until the Minister says, "You have got to take so much population in the next twenty years, and we are here to see you do the job properly."
Again, a lot could be done without prejudicing the skyline of the beautiful South Downs, which I want to preserve as much as anyone. The borough surveyor says that that area is a watershed, and that we cannot get over that problem. That is nonsense. We can get over it, and we have got to find a way. Parish pump politics, local conservatism, the lack of challenge by the Government on what is a national problem, is leaving the local authorities to find the easy way out, they can do nothing at all.

Mr. Frederick Gough: It might help us in following the deployment of the hon. Gentleman's argument if I were to point out what has happened in the case of Worthing, where there is a lack of uniformity in regard to the local planning authorities. It happened with regard to one particular street, and I could give the hon. Gentleman details of it. In this particular avenue, there are already flats developed at a certain density. There is another body which desires to develop flats, which would be admirable from the area, but the authority is reducing the density and making it impossible.

Mr. Chapman: That is the sort of thing that is going on. The pressures inside the local planning offices and whims that occur in making decisions are fantastic.
The other point, in looking at the problems of special localities, where the land famine really occurs, is that the Ministry is not doing enough in merely having consultations with the county council or county borough council. These areas cut across the boundaries of local authorities.


If we take the area about which I am speaking, it consists partly of East Sussex, partly of the county borough of Brighton, partly of the boroughs of Hove and Eastbourne, and partly of a whole lot of miscellaneous land in between. We have to consider that area as a unity. This is the area which is being built up. At the moment, one authority does not know what view is taken by any of the other authorities about their share of this national problem with which it is supposed to be trying to cope. There is no co-ordination. The Minister's idea of talks with the county council or the county borough will get us nowhere until this area, as such—an ad hoc area—is designated as a famine area and the Ministry moves in on a total regional scale and says, "Let us see what we can do to make the best use of the land we have got."
I hope that the Ministry will now stop this merely local approach and try to broaden it into the consideration of areas which ought to be taken together. This is a matter which affects not only the south coast, but which occurs also in my own constituency. What is the use of just talking about Birmingham? I agree that there are talks going on about overspill populations, but it is the people in the whole of the Black Country for whom we have to find room. We have to find a way of absorbing these people in the numbers we can and in 'the regions that matter, and it cannot be considered as a local problem.
I think that, in the areas that are difficult ones, the Ministry should also employ super-planners. I do not want to see Abercrombie plans, taking many years to produce, for every difficult area, but I do suggest that a lot of local authorities, with the best will in the world, have planning officers not of high enough calibre to consider the whole problem of land in the area. It would be a very good thing if, for example, the area of the south coast were looked at as a whole by super-planners, with a view to doing something in the way of co-ordination and designation which was acceptable to everybody's needs.
Fourthly, I am sure that there is some need to help and urge local authorities to do something more active in the way of urban redevelopment. I have already referred to the case of Brighton. We

have one area in the middle of the town where some weeks ago it was proposed by a committee of the corporation that it was ripe for demolition and redevelopment. What happened? Parish pump politics intervened, stressing the problem of the area as opposed to the problem of Brighton, and some members of Brighton Town Council said, "Look at the hardship on the poor shopkeepers who will be displaced". Of course, it was pointed out that some private developer would get hold of the land piecemeal very soon. The very idea that somebody might be hurt, however, caused that plan for the redevelopment of an area which could have been very attractive to be thrown out by the local authority.
The, Minister himself should have indicated what were the needs of the whole area, because here was a contribution to the wider solution of the main problem. I plead for the Minister taking a line with these authorities, and not only saying what can be done, but going one step further and helping them to find and use properly the land they need.
The private speculator can do this. He can move in in a big way. I do not know exactly how he does it. I am not on a scale big enough to do these things. But the big-time operator moves in and soon sorts out the multitude of local ownerships. The local authorities persevere slowly over a period of time and never get anywhere—or seldom get anywhere. We have to find a way of helping local authorities in that problem.
I now come to the question whether there is anything we can do about high prices. I take the view that after we have started the bonfire, which has got so big, in repealing the 1947 Act, no fire extinguishers will cope with it now. We must let the bonfire inside the present development plans burn itself out. It is too late to restrict prices, for reasons at which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) hinted when he interrupted an hon. Member a little while ago. I do not think that much in the way of taxation would help at this stage. With the present famine in some areas, any tax of that nature would be added to the price and the individual purchaser of a house will end up paying the tax when the house is built on the land. I am not really in favour of any of these expedients, worthy though they


all are. I would agree with a capital gains tax. On the whole, that would catch a lot of profit on land which is really income and is being disguised as capital. That is a small measure of social justice which we can certainly afford.
There is another way, which is more controversial, but I wish the Government could accept it. I believe that we could draw a line round the present development plans and say that, broadly speaking, we have to let the fire burn itself out inside this line. Then I think we could, even with a Conservative conscience to deal with, try a different approach in respect of the new areas which are brought into designation for house building outside development plans. We ought to be able to say, "We have made a mistake. We never faced the dilemma of restricting the supply and hoping that the price would take care of itself. But, having made that mistake inside our development plans, let us not go any further. Let us draw a line around and try something fresh outside."
In the sort of areas that I have mentioned—the back of Brighton, the edge of the great conurbations and so on—I should like to see the local authorities again given an opportunity to buy stretches of white land at something less than the present-day astronomical prices. I should like to see the local authorities given the opportunity to buy land at agricultural value plus. We should have to find a new formula. We should certainly not pay the astronomical, speculative prices on land already designated in development plans. After all, the people concerned will get a windfall capital gain through designation. As the next stage in our development plan, we can afford to moderate that capital gain in the interests of the community.
I should like to see local authorities given an opportunity of buying stretches of such land, partly developing it themselves and partly making it available, on a non-profit-making basis to themselves, to private developers who are willing to put up houses at modest prices, the emphasis being on a category of house in, say, the £2,000–£3,000 range which ordinary people can afford.
I know that this is makeshift and ad hoc, and that it does not accord with

the Tory Party's principles of a free market and all that nonsense. It is, however, frankly admitting that this is a problem, that we made a mistake inside our development plans and that we are now going to try, outside the development plans, to help the people who really matter—those in the £2,000—£3,000 range.

Mr. Alan Green: I hope that the hon. Member agrees that most people think that this is a problem, and not just hon. Members opposite. When he produced the suggestion that local authorities should pay something plus, I sympathised with him in his difficulty in saying how much plus. He did not say how much plus. Does he mean that the local authorities should have powers of compulsory purchase at so much plus, and that only the local authorities should have such powers? How will he get people to sell if that is the case?

Mr. Chapman: There are two points there. I agree that hon. Members opposite have admitted that this is a problem. I have complained that the Minister has not been honest and has concealed that there is a problem. I agree that there would have to be powers for compulsory purchase at agricultural value plus. That is a sheer makeshift for getting round the problem of high prices in order to satisfy the market for modestly priced houses. I offer it as no more than that, perhaps only as a temporary expedient, but it seems to me to be the one halfway house towards which I could draw the present Government. It is in that spirit that I offer it.
This is a great problem, as we have all said. I plead with the Committee that we should have no more speeches of the type made by the Minister today. Let us face it; we are in a frightful dilemma. We are in a muddled situation. There are many people who are paying through the nose for houses today; they cannot afford it but they have no alternative. Let us bend our minds not towards making partisan points but towards trying to solve that problem.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: I accept the closing words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), in which he definitely


said that we are facing a great problem. I would go further than that and say that there is no simple solution to the problem. My speech will attempt to analyse its causes. I shall then have a word to say about planning, and then I hope to make some constructive suggestions about how I would attempt to deal with the problem.
I cannot go any distance with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), who suggested that there is a case for a betterment levy upon land which is being sold at high prices at the present time and, in train, a case for compensation where there are planning refusals. I support my right hon. Friend the Minister, who stated that he wishes to have a free market in land. I believe that questions of compensation and betterment are so very difficult that the sensible suggestion at present is to ignore solutions along those lines and to look to the free market in land.
Speaking as one who comes from the north-west of England, I can find no real evidence of speculation in building land in that part of the country. The Minister said that he had evidence of builders buying one, two and three years in advance of requirements. I do not call that speculation. I call that ordinary sensible planning in advance by the developer.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Temple: No, I cannot. The hon. Member will have his turn.
There has also been mention of land hoarding. I can find no evidence of that, either, in the north-west of England. I think that the position has been built up where we have this great demand for land largely as a result of the prosperity brought about by the Conservative Government.
In anything that I say from now onwards I shall make an exception of Greater London. Greater London is one of the world's urban constellations. It is in the same category as Tokyo, New York and Los Angeles. I believe that different considerations should apply to the problem in Greater London.
I think that I shall carry the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) with me in saying that for

many years, while living in the North-West, I have observed the tremendous magnetism of the south-east of England. There is no doubt that families leave Scotland, Wales and the north of England to come and live in the South-East, never to return. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to this magnetism of the Greater London urban constellation. I believe that that magnetism is real. I do not think that it is entirely engendered by the amount of industrial activity in the South-East, nor by the amount of employment there. I believe that it is partly social and partly climatic, and, therefore, that we must live with it. There are special considerations to be taken account of in the problem in the Greater London urban constellation.
Two major factors have caused the rise in the price of land. One is the prospering society, and the other is planning. Both my right hon. Friends and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition might well have referred to the statistical argument of the prospering society. I shall refer to it briefly. I build up the case for this demand for land partly on increase in population—which we can now look forward to—and partly because the sizes of our households are decreasing.
During the last ten years the number of persons per household in the South-East has decreased from 3·3 to 3. In other words, there has been a decrease of about 10 per cent. of persons living in each unit of accommodation. That in itself gives a 10 per cent. increase in demand for housing accommodation in the South-East. This trend may well be observable in other parts of the country.
There is also earlier marriage. Anyone who goes about the country can see the young "grannies" who are so self-evident, and will realise that the velocity of the reproductive cycle is, indeed, increasing in Britain. I am not saying that it is for the benefit of young "grannies," but we have to provide more playing fields and open spaces. I have seen young grannies "jumping about on tennis courts in my time.
Another factor, apart from the social side of the progress of our prosperity, is the amount of land which is needed for industrial development. Again, I think that I carry the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne along with me here—in bygone


days, in the cotton districts, all the industrial development was in the form of multistorey mills. Today, it is rare to find a multistorey factory being built. The new ones are nearly all automated single-storey factories, with one operative looking after an immense amount of machinery. This leads to a tremendous additional demand for land for industrialisation. When I use the words "industrialisation" and "urbanisation", I use them as being largely synonymous.
There is also now the demand for a second house in the country. That sounds strange, I know, but so many people want a caravan as a second home. If they are living in high blocks of flats, the one thing that they want is to get out into the country for the weekends which they now enjoy. There is developing in the countryside a demand for accommodation for caravans or pied à terre for holidays and weekends. All these factors add up to the accelerating demand for land. Unless a major slump develops I cannot see that demand subsiding—and I am sure that no hon. Member of the Committee wants a major slump to develop. All parties are committed to a policy of full employment.
Planning is another major factor in the rise in land values. It is time that we had a fresh look at planning. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and The Times leader today both referred to the Barlow Report. The Times said:
The Barlow conception…must be made to work.
I believe, however, that major factors have supervened since the Barlow Report in 1940, and that they are of tremendous importance.
As hon. Members will recollect, the Barlow Commission was set up to examine the disadvantages of large cities—not the advantages. I shall read one paragraph from its Report, for it is significant in looking today at the economic future of Britain. It said:
From the economic standpoint, the experience not only of Great Britain but of all the great industrial nations of the Western civilization clearly indicates that the big industrialised community has definite advantages.
The Barlow Commission said that there are economic advantages in a large urbanised community. One factor which

I believe has supervened since it reported is that today the strategic reason—which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to—for dispersion from our large cities has largely passed away. Equally, the Barlow Commission was reporting against a background of the heavy unemployment of the 1930s. Again the Commission was reporting against the background of what it conceived to be either a static or a declining population in Britain. That has been entirely overtaken by events. We are, in fact, envisaging an increase in the population.
The Barlow Commission took no cognisance of the universality of the motor car. That is another important factor which has come upon us since then. Another factor, not exactly self-evident today, but only just over the horizon, is that we are proposing to integrate ourselves as an economic unit with the countries of Europe. With all that, there is a case today for the larger urbanised communities in Britain. As the Barlow Report said, there are economic advantages in large cities.
If I have carried the Committee with me so far, I suggest that urban growth is a natural concomitant of a prospering society. I believe that the social and economic trends which were accepted at the time of the Barlow Report have, to a certain extent, been vitiated today. Before I come to my recommendations, I say that we have to live with planning but live without land nationalisation in all its forms. I propose to group my constructive suggestions under four headings: redevelopment of our city centres; reasonable peripheral development; green belts; regional planning. I propose, at the end, to seek to show the effects that my recommendations will have on British agriculture.
The case for the redevelopment of our city centres has been fairly and adequately put by my right hon. Friend. I add only one factor—again quoting from experience in the Liverpool area. The local authority there is, I understand, acquiring land at approximately 9s. per square yard, or about £2,000 an acre, as a result of its slum clearance schemes. These parcels of land which it is acquiring at this favourable price are being redeveloped by the local authority itself at the moment.
There is a case for a local authority—certainly making a profit, because it acquires the land, quite fairly, at the relatively low price of £2,000, which is the sort of price it paid when acquiring similar land before the war—allowing a private developer to develop some of those important sites, the local authority selling the land to the private developer for the purpose.
I wholeheartedly support my right hon. Friend when he says that he would consider accepting higher densities. I quote an example from an area just north of Liverpool and my authority is the President of the Chartered Auctioneers and Estate Agents' Institute, who said that land to the north of Liverpool had been granted a housing density of five dwellings to the acre. That density should be raised to seven and a half dwellings to the acre, giving a 50 per cent. increase in the number of units of accommodation available. I support an active policy of redevelopment of our city centres and I believe that that is what my right hon. Friend is proposing to do.
Now I turn to a subject which will be far more controversial. I favour reasonable peripheral development. I prefer that to what I call "patchworking", or "pepper-potting". Perhaps I should explain what I mean by patchworking and pepper-potting. Replying to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on 5th July, my right hon. Friend said, of his green belt policy:
…proper provision must be made for development beyond the green belt".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1960; Vol. 626, c. 23.]
By patchworking, I mean development of new towns with populations of 50,000 to 100,000, fairly large units of urbanisation. By pepper-potting, I mean the development of small villages into large villages, developing villages with populations of 1,000 or 2,000 into villages of 4,000 to 5.000, in other words comparatively sporadic development beyond the green belt.
My major reason for advocating extensions of 'peripheral development is that as anyone with knowledge of agriculture will realise, where urban development meets the countryside there is always a sterilisation of the land on the periphery

of the urban development. If reasonable peripheral development is allowed, there will be a shorter length of perimeter at which the urban development will meet the countryside, because the area of one large area of urban development will be confined by a smaller perimeter than would a similar area confined within many smaller plots of urban development. I seek to limit the urban perimeter, which we would have by patch-working and pepper-potting, by reasonable peripheral development.
There is also a case for peripheral development on administrative grounds, because local authorities are better able to organise their education and other services when urbanisation is in one large compact area.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Member is making a serious case which should be challenged and perhaps more clearly explained. If he restricts urban development to the inside of the green belt, the peripheral development as he says, then that is only a short-term policy dealing with immediate needs. What happens to the green belt in the next decade? Surely the circumference will be extended all the time, so that in a few years, as has been argued, there will again be the need to leap-frog the green belt.

Mr. Temple: I shall deal with the question of green belts in a moment. The views of the hon. Member and mine on green belts may not coincide, but I will explain my policy about green belts.
However, I was about to say that I doubt whether country dwellers would welcome the patchworking or pepper-potting of the countryside any more than they would welcome the extension by peripheral development, but we have to find the land for urbanisation somewhere and I make the case for an extension of peripheral development because I believe that it merits very serious consideration.
Continuing the same line of argument, I do not believe that by putting the development beyond the green belt we will necessarily decrease the pressure on our urban centres, because it may well be that people living beyond the green belt will have to have their own transport to get into the city and thus they will cause more congestion—and they will


still have to use the city centres for shopping, social and business purposes. The congestion in the centre of the cities may well increase by reason of development beyond the green belt.
Now I come to the subject of the green belts themselves. Every hon. Member is aware that there is only one statutory green belt in the country, the Greater London green belt. I have with me a plan of that green belt and I have endeavoured to discover the logic behind it. To the south of London the green belt is 15 miles deep, while for most of north London it is five miles deep and does not exist at all in two places. In other words, there is no complete green belt round Greater London.
The boundaries of the Greater London green belt are largely coincidental with local authority boundaries. A local government commission is now sitting and it may recommend variations in local government boundaries. Is it the Minister's intention to vary the green belt if local government boundaries themselves are varied? I would have much more respect for green belt areas if the boundaries had been conceived on planning grounds, in other words, if the green belt perimeters had followed the lines of rivers or escarpments, or natural features. That would be more logical than following local government boundaries existing at some moment of time.
In my own area there is a proposal, now before my right hon. Friend, to build the largest commercial vehicle factory in Europe in what is, in effect, a proposed "green buffer". Until the public inquiry, this proposed green buffer of land, between Ellesmere Port on the south side of the River Mersey, and Bebington, was considered an established green belt, but at the inquiry learned counsel, Mr. Geoffrey Lawrence, referred to this parcel of land as being a proposed green belt. In fact, he was perfectly right and it was not a statutory green belt. I understand from reports in the local newspapers, however, that the Clerk to Cheshire County Council referred to it as a green belt area.
Whether a proposed green belt or green belt, the fact remains that, for excellent economic reasons, the Vauxhall Motor Company is seeking permission to build a huge factory there, with all the

repercussions which will follow. If it had not been hoped that that request would be acceded to, it would not have been made. My argument is that one does not appear to be able to have complete faith in these green belts, whether proposed or statutory. Are they, in fact, inviolate when major economic reasons are put forward to show that they should be varied?
I was very glad to find some measure of agreement between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition about regional planning. I believe that there is a case for regional planning. I believe that the Local Government Act, 1958, was designed for this specific purpose, because it is possible that the local government commission will recommend the setting up of joint planning boards for the special review areas. I know both sides of this argument and I believe that at present there is a strong case for regional planning.
It would be wrong to neglect to make a certain amount of comment on the effect of this urbanisation on British agriculture. I have an interesting article from the Farmers' Weekly of 8th July. It refers to Mr. Arnold Priestley, who farms about 40 acres. During the last ten years he has increased his output sevenfold, from £1,500 to £11,000.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not here, but I think that everyone is conversant with the fact that although the agricultural acreage of our country has been declining its gross and net output has been increasing. As an agriculturist I am convinced that, even if a certain amount of valuable agricultural land goes to urbanisation, agricultural output from the remaining acres will be in excess of the present agricultural output.
I hope that I have made it clear that I am not panicking over this situation. I am fortified in that outlook by a speech made at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, at the annual spring meeting of the Town Planning Institute, by Mr. J. R. James, the Deputy Chief Planner to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. He said:
Analysis of the present set of development plans reveals that the rate of local dispersion has been underestimated almost everywhere.


Speaking of the green belt, he said:
It was never intended as a defensive measure against the reasonable peripheral expansion of urban areas…It cannot stop growth in the city region. It can only shape it.
I believe that those words are immensely significant. I understand from those who were at the conference that the accent was on the word "reasonable". Mr. James ref erred to "reasonable peripheral expansion.", and the fact that the green belt could not stop development but could only shape it.
I go all the way with him, and that explains my attitude to the price and use of land. I believe that urban growth is interlocked with prosperity. We want the latter, so we have to learn to live with the former. Let us continue to shape it—not restrict it—for the benefit of the nation.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am sorry that the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) does not feel able to express agreement with the proposals of his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) for a betterment levy or, rather, what he called a betterment levy. It was a betterment levy with a difference, because, as I understood it, it was designed to provide that a vendor of land which had greatly enhanced development value should make a payment to an owner of land whose land was sterilised by planning decisions and refusals of permission. That is betterment with a difference, and not betterment as we on this side of the Committee have understood it.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The levy would be charged on the vendor and would go to the Exchequer. The Exchequer would reimburse owners who were denied their development value.

Mr. Irvine: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is, as I say, betterment with a difference, but there are hopeful signs that the hon. Member for North Angus is at least moving in what some of us on this side of the Committee regard as the correct direction.
The Minister's speech today must have given relief to the speculators in land. It was not unexpected relief. Their foresight and powers of anticipation are recognised to be considerable, and they

probably expected something of the kind which they received, but the Minister's speech revealed no constructive proposals for dealing with a serious situation.
I felt that the Minister did not give sufficient recognition to the fact, of which he must be aware, that the present movement of land prices is fairly and squarely the responsibility of the Government and the result of the policies that they have pursued. I believe that any consideration of what is the appropriate step to take in this situation should be clearly founded on a recognition of that fact. After all, the 1959 Act introduced an assessment of prices for the compulsory purchase of land on a basis of what might be expected would be realised on a sale by a willing seller in the open market.
As we know, that constituted a departure from the provisions of the 1947 Act, which required that compensation should be assessed on the basis of existing use. The 1959 provisions marked the final and complete breakaway from the 1947 concept, with the 1954 Act representing a kind of half-way house.
Any endeavour to work out a constructive policy to deal with what has rightly been described as the scandal of land prices at the present moment must take account of what I have referred to, namely, the transformation of the situation which has been brought about by Government policies, because the position now is that an acquiring authority, in the case of compulsory purchase of land, is paying for every single element of value comprised in the land. A local authority does not pay merely for the element of value which is attributable to the communal effort and enterprise put into the land by society, which is the element of value which those who advocate the taxation of land values are after. It pays in addition for the element of value in the land which is attributable to the making of planning decisions and the grant of planning permission.
From many points of view a grotesque situation faces a local authority which, in the general interests of the community, seeks, for example, to plan open spaces within its area. It feels all the time, as it were over its shoulder, that the consequence of making a generous


allocation of open space in its development plans will inevitably be that it will have to pay a higher price for the compulsory purchase of adjoining land for housing purposes.
The Minister said this afternoon that when these matters were discussed in connection with the 1959 legislation the argument for the betterment levy was not urgently pursued by the Opposition. He will no doubt remember, however, that there were considerable arguments on the issue of a betterment levy. Also, he will remember the discussions that took place in connection with floating value and matters of that kind.
We on this side of the Committee are united in the view that any policy designed to deal with the scandal of land prices must be considered and arrived at in the setting of our recognition that an entirely new situation has been created in which the compulsory purchase price of land is equated with the price of land in the open market, and that local authorities in acquiring land for the purposes of housing, or any other purposes, are required to pay every single element comprised in that open market value of the land.
There is a certain parallel between the reaction of prices in the land market to the Government's provisions in the 1959 Act and the reaction of prices on the Stock Exchange to the Conservative Party's victory at the General Election. It is a matter of creating a climate of opinion. In one case investors in certain classes of security, and in the other case investors in land interests, recognised that the climate of opinion was favourable to them—as they saw it—and the immediate consequence was the kind of inflationary movement in prices that we have been witnessing, although the social disadvantages accruing are very great.
I admit that there is a certain disadvantage in having a discrepancy between the compulsory purchase price of land and the open market value, but in my view the objections to that are less than the social and economic dangers which are occurring today in the current movement of land prices. The 1947 Act endeavoured to equate the existing use value of land with its open market value. If that endeavour had been successful it would have got over the difficulty with

which I am dealing. In other words, the compulsory purchase price of land would have been the same as the open market price, at the existing use value. It is true that the endeavour of the 1947 Act failed. Even so, I feel great pride in my party's record in connection with the 1947 legislation. It was a splendid Act, and it is one of the tragedies of the post-war era that it just did not get by. I believe that if the Central Land Board had made a more assertive use of its powers of compulsory acquisition to buttress the concept of the open market price of land being equal to the compulsory purchase price at existing use value there might not have been any need for the subsequent amending legislation.
But the endeavour to equate the existing use value of land both to the compulsory purchase price and the open market price broke down. Whereas we endeavoured to effect that equation in value, the Conservative Party, in its long phase of Parliamentary power, has sought to achieve, and has achieved, another equation, namely that of the compulsory purchase price with the highest conceivable price including every element of value that any valuer in this world could think of.
The real nigger in the woodpile is the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield). It was he who fanned into flame this development. For many years the Conservative Party resisted the proposition which has now prevailed, of the compulsory purchase price of land being equivalent to the top open market price. That method had not been used in the 1944 Act. In that Act, passed by a Coalition Government in which the Conservative Party played its part, prices were pegged at 1939 levels. There had been substantial inflation in land prices since the beginning of the war, and yet it was determined, in the 1944 Act, that the price for the compulsory purchase of land should be confined to the 1939 level.
That necessarily meant the introduction of a two-tier system. In the Town and Country Planning Act of 1954 the present Prime Minister had an opportunity to close the gap and make the compulsory purchase price of land equivalent to the open market value. He did not do this, because he is a very


shrewd politician and knows the appropriate pace at which to proceed in matters of this kind. The passage in his speech quoted by my right hon. Friend this afternoon clearly reveals that he thought there would be a good deal of popular objection to any proposal to equate the compulsory purchase price of land with the open market value. For that long period this development we now see was resisted. It was at that point that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South came in and carried all before him. The Government must realise that in yielding to the pressure behind them they are responsible for what is now occurring.
It is interesting to recall that in the early part of the history of compulsory purchase in this country the practice was that when land was compulsorily acquired a percentage-plus was paid to the owner. He was given something additional to the open market value as compensation for the fact that he was the victim of something so unsocial as a compulsory acquisition. That was the climate of opinion when compulsory purchase first developed.
We have now left all that behind. The weight and influence of social and economic change has made people see these things quite differently. We have gone through an intermediate period in which there has been an endeavour to equate the open market price and the compulsory purchase price, and I believe that we should now direct our attention to going further and giving to local authorities a preferential rate of purchase of interests in land where these purchases are made for social purposes, such as housing. Only in this way shall we achieve uninhibited planning. All this financial aspect is very closely related to the planning side. To the extent that financial considerations run counter to planning requirements, this whole aspect possesses great relevance.
I recognise that hardship accrues in certain instances where, on compulsory purchase, an amount less than the open market value is received. I acknowledge that, because it stands out a mile. That was one of the factors which undoubtedly diluted the opposition to the 1959 legislation. There were many comparatively small owner-occupiers whose interest was diminished in value

because of some such matter as a street-widening scheme or something of that kind. It seemed very hard that those people should recover on compulsory purchase anything less than they could have received by selling in the open market.
We must remember that in such cases by definition there is no element of betterment. What we want to aim at is provision for deducting from the open market value on compulsory acquisition the element of betterment. That is the element of value which derives from the grant of planning permission. In the case of the small owner-occupier which I have cited that element will be non-existent.
I acknowledge that any such process of deducting betterment must necessarily follow a rather rough and ready method. Betterment is not an easy element to quantify. It would have to be a matter for the district valuer. It would have to be applied uniformly and according to pattern over different parts of the country. It should be referable on appeal to the Lands Tribunal.
But this matter of the compulsory purchase price is the key to the whole problem. There is a raging inflationary movement of land values. There is a need to do something urgently to put it right. The character attaching to any real remedy is that there must be a limitation of the compulsory purchase value of land. That will" have an immediate restraining effect upon the market. Without some such endeavour, the situation, which is already bad, will tend to worsen.
In conclusion, the recommendation which I make, that the whole issue of what is the appropriate compulsory purchase price of land should in this connection be looked into again, is not at all inconsistent with other suggested reforms and recommendations. For example, it is not inconsistent with, and does not run at any point counter to, the concept of a capital gains tax or to any of the additional claims of those who desire to tax land values.
Nor is it inconsistent with the proposals one reads—The Times leading article today refers to this—that there should be more drastic, careful and comprehensive treatment of the quinquennial reviews of development plans. All these


related matters can be usefully pursued at the same time that we review the question of what should be the compulsory acquisition price.

Mr. H. Brooke: I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman will indicate to me, having listened to my speech, in what directions he thinks greater trouble should be taken over the reviews. I read what was said in The Times. So far as I know, it was quite without foundation. It was certainly written without any attempt to discover from me what was done.

Mr. Irvine: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that at the point when he intervened I was endeavouring to bring home to the Committee the point that my recommendations about the compulsory purchase price of land are not inconsistent with recommendations being made for changes in the treatment of development plans. He has invited me to launch forth upon a somewhat exceptional sideline point. Although I am grateful to him for making the suggestion, I am not sure that my gratitude would be shared by the rest of the Committee on that aspect. I would prefer to confine my observations to the point that what I have recommended about the compulsory purchase price is not inconsistent with any reforms which may be necessary in other connections, though the right hon. Gentleman will deny that any are necessary.
In a somewhat critical situation, rapidly worsening, the constructive and effective method to handle this problem is to reconsider the whole subject of what is the appropriate price to pay on the compulsory purchase of land, and to recognise that the correct course in arriving at that price is to deduct from the open market value an element for betterment. I strongly plead that the admitted difficulty of calculating that element is not sufficiently great to justify allowing things to continue as they are.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) made two points to which I want particularly to refer. The first was his surprise that the Conservative policy should create confidence and thus a rise

in prices. Prices in any commodity must depend on confidence and the demand.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's second point was that, when the 1947 Act decided that land should be sold at existing use values, there was some surprise that land was sold only for existing use. Nobody is anxious to sell land unless he makes a profit or has a good reason for selling it. Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), I am a builder. To me, land is a raw material. Any industrialist who sees a raw material appearing to become a speculative province must become apprehensive, but the experience is that speculation in any commodity is generally broken down finally by excess of supply. The rings we have seen in pepper and copper were always broken down when the demand was found to be less than the supply. The ultimate end to this is getting much more land than is being found at present. That is why I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement.
Before I discuss the problem in detail, I should like to view it from my point of view as a builder. Unlike the hon. Member for Northfield, my private enterprise instincts run exactly parallel with my political ones. Consequently, I appreciate that I am able to see the problem in its full concept. I agree with him entirely that there is a great demand in local authorities for parish pump politics. Having built a great number of houses in my lifetime and seen the joy that people experience from owning their own houses, I always appreciate that they, having acquired a house, are not overanxious that people round them should get houses.
At the same time, we ought to look at the problem in its overall aspect. What is the land to be used for? There has been considerable mention by hon. Members opposite about the fear of offices being built, but they were as anxious as we that the Offices Bill should be passed. I voted against that Bill on Second Reading because I was apprehensive that if we decided to raise the standard of offices, as we all wanted to do, but at the same time objected to offices being built, all we should accomplish would be to raise the price of offices.


Then we would have another scare about private enterprise taking advantage of the position.

Mr. Boyden: Will the hon. Member agree that hon. Members on this side of the Committee did not object to the building of offices but to where offices were to be built?

Mr. Costain: I quite agree, but it is just as well to build offices where they are needed.
It may be worth considering various prices of building flats and houses, for there is not enough clear thinking on this matter. The cost of building an ordinary dwellinghouse today is about 40s. per square foot. The cost of building a maisonette is about 45s. per square foot. The cost of building an 8-storey flat is 74s. per square foot, and the cost of building a I2-storey flat is 83s. per square foot. I mention those facts because we must appreciate that if the demand for building more flats is to be considered we have to realise that we shall use more capital of the country to achieve that objective. My company has built almost as many flats as houses, so I hope I may be considered unprejudiced on this point.
Generally, with the rising standard, the family man wants a house and garden of his own, and who can blame him? Equally, elderly people, those about to retire, and particularly widows, are very anxious to have flats. In the planning organisation we must bear those factors in mind. We must also realise that if we force family men to go into flats, of necessity they will want to get their children out into the country at week-ends. That will increase the road programme problem. I feel strongly that we ought to plan in such a way that family people can get houses.
There are certain points we can learn even from the Commonwealth. My business takes me all over the world. In areas where they want to encourage development in some of our Dominions, they insist that a certain type of development shall be comprehensive. For instance, they insist in certain parts that if a developer wants to build a number of houses he shall also build a factory to go with them. I see the possibility in our larger towns of comprehensive development being a help. I quote the

instance, only because it is near here, of the number of offices being built on the South Bank. Slum property is being demolished there and offices are being built.
Then there is the instance of Battersea. There is a great amount of small property in Battersea which I believe could be developed as a co-ordinated area, a small town inside a town, provided that the land could be released on the basis of putting up x number of houses and building offices to go with them. That would have the advantage of preventing traffic coming the whole way into London. If in a town planning proposal there could be a link between one type of development and another, we could encourage private enterprise to get on with the job. I do not think anyone in the Committee would deny that private enterprise has got on with the job of housing in this country.
We have to bear in mind just what the rise in the price of land really means. There is a great temptation always to look upon the spectacular. The Leader of the Opposition gave details of a series of prices of land today. Of course, every one of them was quite accurate, but picked them out of a tremendous number of individual prices. Last week we read in the newspapers about a diamond fetching a fantastic figure—or, to be more correct, it did not reach that figure. The value was put on the diamond because it was a special item and in someone's opinion it had a special value. In Luton, someone rightly or wrongly decided that land there was equally valuable to land in London. High prices in the centre of London have been known for hundreds of years. If a person decided in his wisdom that land in Luton is equal in price to land in London, that is his judgment. Do not let us reorient our ideas around that factor.
A better picture can be obtained by studying an interesting book by Mr. Denman on "Peak Prices and Planning". As a practical man, he used his commonsense on this subject. He took a series of prices with 1939 prices as the basis. Taking 1939 as 100, he drew attention to the fact that compared with 1939 the price per acre in 1959 was 792. I do not deny that probably it is 1,000 now. The cost per foot frontage had risen from 100 to 323. What we have to notice


is that, while the price per foot frontage has gone up three times—which is about the same as the increase in the cost of other commodities—the price per acre has gone up eight times.
There are two reasons for that. The main reason is that over that period we have learned to develop land economically. When land is sold on a foot frontage basis at a high price, one cannot afford to buy it, but when it is sold by the acre the development, planning and experience is such that one can afford to pay that much more without relatively very much altering the price of land.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I noticed that the hon. Member's figures went up to 1959. Has he any figures for 1960? It is in the last, few months that the spectacular increase in the price of land has taken place.

Mr. Costain: I said that although in 1959 it was 792 it might be 1,000'today.

Mrs. Butler: That was in a particular ease, but has the hon. Member any examples of increases since then?

Mr. Costain: There has not been very much variation on the foot frontage basis, except for the odd petrol pump that we hear about. One could get a bookie stand or anything else there.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The hon. Member referred to Luton. Does what he said about that imply that when builders in the West Riding of Yorkshire complain of the extremely high price of land they do not know what they are talking about?

Mr. Costain: As a builder, I often complain about the high price of everything; that is a builder's prerogative. In anything I have said I do not want in any way to give the impression that I do not think this is a problem. It is a problem and one which can be dealt with only by releasing more products over the whole picture. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) that if we tax land we help to get it developed. I do not think we have ever decreased the cost of a commodity by nationalising or taxing it. I would suggest that every hon. Member should make a contribution—a really serious contribution—

Mr. John Mackie: Mr. John Mackie (Enfield, East) rose—

Mr. Costain: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have given way four times and many of my hon. Friends want to speak.
I think that every Member could make a real contribution. We all know our constituencies very well. I suggest that each hon. Member should go to his own council and discuss with it the amount of land that is available and compare it with what the building programme has been over the last two years.
The Minister in his speech today said that he would be only too anxious to take up any particular case. I have already written in my mind two letters to him. I believe that if every hon. Member would do the same we could do a great deal to cure this problem of land shortage.

7.21 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I hope that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail. He spoke with very considerable practical knowledge of the building industry, and I want to limit myself to what was touched on, but not at great length, both by the Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, namely, the redevelopment of our city centres.
In a way, the problem is similar, although not identical, to that discussed by most hon. Members in the Committee when talking about building houses. What is common to every aspect of this problem is that it is decisive who owns the land. That is crucial when thinking in terms of redeveloping our city centres, where we have to gut, change and perform radical operations. There ownership of the land is tremendously important.
I think that every hon. Member will agree with me that unification of ownership is essential and that what we have grumbled about so much in the past and what is causing us apprehension now is the fact that the absence of unified ownership has allowed the private developers to move in on a fragmentated site which is not big enough and where, with the best will in the world, he cannot satisfy the community.
We are naturally anxious to see that the centres of our cities, as they are being redeveloped, are redeveloped quickly where it is most needed. That is probably not so much a problem in London as in many of our large cities and towns in the provinces. Not only should it be done quickly, but no serious mistakes should be made.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I speak a little about what I have in mind as to how this might be done. In The Times of 14th June, an article by Mr. Lionel Brett made reference to the annual conference of the Royal Institute of British Architects which met in Manchester. The subject of the conference was, "The Rebuilding of Cities". In the last few paragraphs of that article he stated:
Today we are coming to realise that in the very size and boldness of projects lies their economy. Moreover, we are presented with an entirely new combination of circumstances. On the one hand, we have cities too squalid for our present standard of living and so congested by traffic that we can clearly see the stage of strangulation only a few years ahead. On the other hand, we are in the midst of a building boom which, if we could ride it, could do all that needs to be done by the turn of this century. The question is"—
this is the most serious question—
whether we can ride it. whether, in other words, democratic control of environment is a contradiction in terms.
This is the very serious question which, in a way, the Committee has been asking itself this afternoon. Although we have not achieved a specific answer, and although most of us probably think that there is no one specific answer to all these contingencies, I think that we should get our thinking and philosophy right about it and be prepared to make some sacrifice of our innate prejudices, if there are any due to party political considerations, because what must be done must be done soon and, if it is to be done soon, it has to be acceptable to the country.
I remember very well that when it passed the Town and Country Planning Act in 1947, the Labour Government made certain assumptions. I think that in the main there were three. They assumed that large-scale redevelopment would, in the main, be carried out by local authorities which would use their powers to designate areas for compulsory purchase to deal with blitzed and blighted areas which they would buy quite cheaply at existing use values.
In developing the centres of our cities—I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with us—it was felt by the Labour Government that the local planning committees would prepare development plans for the redevelopment of the centre of the cities, the thriving areas, and would control what happened by negative procedure by saying that no one would be allowed to redevelop there unless the redevelopment conformed to a plan. It was hoped that this combination of having a plan and using negative procedure would be enough to give a co-ordinated and visually satisfactory redevelopment, and that it would be private enterprise, in the main, which would undertake this.
I think that these were the assumptions which we made at that time. We did not think that there would be any hurry about it. We did not see that certain changes would take place and that the private developer would be pressing so hard on some of our local authorities, particularly in the great intersections of our great cities, picking out the plums for development and not doing what I am sure the Minister would have them do.
I know that the Minister made a speech on Friday morning across the road to the Civic Trust in which he asked rhetorically, "Where is the private developer when he is needed most?" We have not seen any signs of him in places like Wigan and Widnes because he does not think that it is lucrative enough compared with great and glittering prizes like those in Piccadilly Circus.
I do not blame anybody. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not run away from the implications of what I am saying when I declare that the changes in legislation since 1947 have some responsibility for this. But it does not matter who is responsible. Whether we made a mistake in 1947 by bringing forward an Act which I think was excellent philosophically but which apparently did not succeed because it was too rigidly administered—which was a great pity—or whether the present Government have gone too far in their legislation of 1953, 1954 and 1959, the fact remains that between us we should put this right now or we shall be blamed by everybody and for ever in the future.
The question is, how are we to get things better? I have details in my notes


about what has happened as a result of recent legislation, but other hon. Members wish to speak and I will not analyse these details. It is obvious that by making a more or less free market in land, difficulties are created. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that grants for comprehensive development are now limited to areas of extensive war damage and have been so limited for some time. I think he will agree that with the abolition of the development charge and the restoration of development value to private enterprise, local authorities in their planning found themselves liable in some circumstances to pay very heavy compensation if they tried to prevent any fragment of planning which they thought would not fit into their overall comprehensive scheme. That has been a bad result.
Moreover, the Parliamentary Secretary knows better than I that two months is too short a time for a local authority to have to say yes or no when presented with a plan by a developer. At least by means of an administrative change in respect of the centres of our great cities, we should allow a local authority a year to look carefully at the problem presented to it by a would-be developer.

Mr. Costain: Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that land should lie fallow for a year while a local authority makes up its mind what should happen to it?

Dr. Stross: I must beg the hon. Member's pardon if he has not appreciated that I am speaking about the centres of our great cities.

Mr. Costain: I understand that.

Dr. Stross: I am thinking of places, for example, where there are great intersections, such as Piccadilly Circus, where redevelopment has to take place. As the law stands a developer can say, "I want to redevelop this property which I own, and if you do not let me do it, I want my 10 per cent. compensation under the Third Schedule." The local authority must say yes or no within two months. If, by agreement with the developer, it obtains a longer time for discussion, we hear complaints that it is not fair to the developer to keep him for months and months while consideration takes place.

Sir K. Joseph: Does not the hon. Member agree that this problem would not arise so much if local authorities had a plan and carefully considered what they wanted to do with the city centres?

Dr. Stross: I do not want to stress it too often, but let us take the example of Piccadilly Circus. Certainly there was a plan and a model which was shown, but the Parliamentary Secretary knows that not one developer was prepared to segregate pedestrians from wheeled traffic. The London County Council gave way because it could not afford to buy these areas of land, which are so expensive and which are needed if we are to have comprehensive redevelopment of the heart of a great city such as London.
I think that the London County Council made a great mistake by giving way and was rescued from it ultimately by the Minister's action. We were grateful that he was able to rescue the L.C.C. from its mistake. But the L.C.C. fell into this trap partly because of the Government's action. With £30 million to £35 million a year to spend on the whole of Greater London, we must have priorities. We must decide between Piccadilly Circus and helping those who are homeless or are living in horrible slums and must be rehoused. We must deal with the blitzed areas and the slum dwellings. With this limited amount of money, the L.C.C. had to earmark it mostly to rehouse these people, and it could not afford to spend the money on Piccadilly Circus.
The Minister has now said, "The scheme which you agreed with a certain private developer is not good enough and will not do. Please let me have a careful comprehensive plan for the whole area." Such a plan is being prepared by Professor Holford. But the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe knows that a plan is not enough if one has no money with which to buy land ultimately to carry out the plan.

Mr. Costain: If an authority keeps a site in the centre of the city sterile for a year, it will want a lot more money.

Dr. Stross: I would rather keep the centre of my city sterile for a year and not make a horrible mistake, of which I should be ashamed, for over a hundred years. I would rather keep it sterile


for a year than go for a quick profit because I cannot wait for a year. Let us do some thinking and do our planning properly When it is properly done we can do the building, and if it involves a cost, we must remember that it has a social purpose. It is planning for the future, and we cannot afford to make mistakes. I am certain that when the Prince Regent was planning Regent Street much careful thought was given to the subject before the work was carried out. We should not mind waiting and losing some potential profit in order to ensure that it is well done.
I must be forgiven for diverging a little. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that recent legislation gave encouragement to the private developer and that there is not one private developer or group of private developers who, in the centres of our great cities, where land is very expensive, can afford to buy enough land and buildings to provide the twenty-five acres we need for comprehensive redevelopment. When I think of the price of land in the centre of London I cannot work out how much twenty-five acres would cost. Only the nation as a whole can afford to move forward in this way and to think in such terms, and certainly the L.C.C. cannot.
As the private developer cannot afford it, he picks the pieces of land which he wants to redevelop in small fragments, and that is when he meets difficulties. He has to pay very high prices to persuade people to agree to a unified development on even a small piece of a quarter or half an acre. Even that costs a lot of money in the centre of a great city. The developer then has to build in such a way as to get the maximum profit, because he has had to pay very heavily for the land. That is one factor which we should consider, and another is that if the negative procedure is used to prevent bad redevelopment, it is very expensive for the local authority, which cannot afford to pay the 10 per cent. compensation.
The pressure which has been brought on some local authorities by this new and highly skilled group of speculative developers is unfortunate. I should like to see full use made of their skills and knowledge, but they must be harnessed. I think it was the Minister who said that they must be harnessed so that the

ultimate result will give us not only buildings to enable us to ride the building boom but, at the end, something worth looking at and something of which we shall not be ashamed. In any event, however expensive the land is, we may have to put pieces of it aside for the development of roads.
The Minister of Transport does not always help local authorities to the full; often the assistance which he gives is niggardly. I have heard him accused of being hag-ridden and always frightened by the Treasury, and certainly he is not a favourite of the local authorities. Local planning authorities cannot always afford to do what they would like, so when a developer offers some further financial assistance they are tempted and fall into the trap of carrying out hasty redevelopment of a partial nature which they would have preferred to avoid.
Any patient can go to a general practitioner to have a wart taken away or a small fatty tumour removed from the skin. To deal with the centre of a large town or city is a job which calls for the most highly skilled "surgeons" in the form of the best technicians, town planners, architects, surveyors and engineers, but they are not always easily available, and not to small local authorities. There are possible ways of finding a solution, and although I do not think that I would hold up any one in particular, I will give my preference.
Could local authorities be given all the powers and finance they need? At present local authorities must account annually to their ratepayers. Councillors and aldermen feel that they cannot buy land in expensive pieces in the centres of towns and cities because long before the land can be developed and bring in a return the rates will have gone up owing to the extra cost and these councillors will be thrown out of office as a result. They will be succeeded by people whose views are in opposition to theirs and the scheme they have in mind will be scrapped. Therefore, local authorities will not take the risk and, as a result, they find themselves in great difficulty.
Can private enterprise do this? I have already said that normally private enterprise cannot, because a private developer will fail, however wealthy,


and even though he be backed by a great organisation like a building society. Such developers have not proved that they could buy 25 acres of land in the centre of London, Manchester or Birmingham.
Should there be a partnership between private developers and local authorities? There is an interesting example in the experiment being conducted at Frankfurt where it was decided that if pieces of land could not be purchased by the local authority, because of public accountability, they would form a landowning company and in this way avoid the need for annual public accountability. There the local authority is in partnership with the developers. We cannot do that at present—I must not dilate on this subject because legislation would be needed and one must not enter upon a discussion on legislation.
We could have public boards and development could be run by such boards. The boards which I envisage would not take authority from the local authorities who have planning powers. Local authorities with such powers would not give them to any other authority gladly and easily. These public boards might be set up on a regional basis, one for Scotland, another for Wales, another for the north of England and one for the Midlands and the South. They might be empowered to buy land at present prices by compulsory purchase, and to own it and release it to private developers or local authorities as it was needed for the kind of purposes which I have in mind.
It seems to me that two things would result. There would be less tendency for a spiral of inflation, and local authorities would feel assured regarding their future. They would know that land would be available when they wanted it and could afford to buy it. The rates would not go up in the first few unfruitful years when there would be no return from development. Everyone knows that ultimately they might make a profit, but sometimes we must be prepared to make a loss on redevelopment because we wish to make a garden, or do something like that, and give people the right to live spaciously and comfortably in the centres of their cities.
Psychiatrists from all over Europe have told me that it is difficult to live in a big city. Someone today said that it is a great thing to build a city big, it is profitable; but we have to pay a penalty. Above a certain size, and the size is only 15,000, which is equivalent to a large village or a small town, the rate of mental breakdown rises sharply. It is hard and exasperating to live in a great city, and the least we can do is to make the centres of our cities as attractive and homely as possible. We must make them safe for our people to walk about leisurely, and we must separate the people from the danger which arise from traffic.
If the public boards which I have described could own land and hand it over to public authorities or private developers as it was needed, at least we should have overcome the first hurdle. But it is important that such public boards should be able to establish research units to investigate this type of redevelopment about which we do not know very much. Every problem is different in every big city, and even in parts of the same city. A great city using its own offices might tend to duplicate and imitate the solution applicable to one intersection for every other problem, which would result in something that was dull and boring. The visual end result is as important as the profit motive. That is what we as legislators should be thinking about all the time.
I apologise for the length of my speech. I know how interesting hon. Members find this subject but I think it a highly political subject. If we are to succeed it had better not be too party political. But it is highly political as the basis of the future of our lives and the lives of those who come after us, and I hope that soon we shall succeed in finding a solution.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) was over-complimentary when he suggested that I had played the major part in the passing of the 1959 Act. In any case, the hon. and learned Gentleman might like to know that I have no regrets. I make no apologies; I am absolutely convinced that the situation existing before the passing of that Act


was quite intolerable, and that no system envisaging a two-tier price system can be justified.
However that may be—and I want to come back to that subject a little later—I think that most people will agree that in a debate of this sort it is essential to keep separate questions dealing with the price of land, on the one hand, and those with regard to betterment, on the other. The economic price of land is quite different from any question of how or whether any part of the profits accruing to a private person should be channelled back into the coffers of the State.
There has been general agreement to- day that a considerable part of the problem arises from the fact that we have artificially reduced the supply of land through planning control, while, on the other hand, we have to some extent artificially stimulated the demand by various social policies which I think most of us have agreed are almost the corollary to a rising standard of living. It is apt to remember that, so far as I, at any rate, can understand the criticisms of Government policy from the benches opposite, they have generally been directed to suggesting that houses are not being built fast enough; that hospitals and roads are not being built fast enough and that we have not enough facilities for recreation, and so on. All that must mean an even bigger demand on land than now exists.
I, for one, subscribe to the point put forward by those who feel that it is important to decide whether, in this very overcrowded island, with a population that is, apparently, increasing quite a lot faster than was envisaged ten years ago, and which is continuing to concentrate in certain areas, we can really afford to be quite as extravagant in the use of land as we have been in the past. One has only to go by train or car out of London from any of the main termini or along any of the main arterial roads to see acres and acres of land developed, some- times with one-storey buildings but, more often, with two-storey buildings—and that on land that must be amongst the most valuable in the world.
If high prices induce a greater economy in the future—and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has given some interesting figures to suggest that higher

land prices will make it more profitable to build higher—and if those prices also give an added financial inducement to helping forward my right hon. Friend's policy of redeveloping obsolete urban areas, I cannot regard them as a wholly unmitigated evil.
It is interesting to compare some of the modern development since the war with that of many years ago—perhaps centuries ago—when there was no development control except the ordinary play of economic forces. In my part of the country, practically every village is built either on the side of the hill or tucked away on the land that is virtually useless for agriculture. The agricultural land—the great flat fields, or nearly flat—on top of the Cotswolds was much too valuable to build on. Since the war, however, even with planning control, the reverse has been happening, and if prices go up and the land on the side of the hills, very often making the development invisible from any great distance, comes back into use for development, I cannot regard that as anything but an advantage. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has given us some interesting sidelights on the view of the builder. I do not want to say more about that than that it seems to me that if we are to have a rising standard of living we need, among other things, an efficient building industry, and I cannot see that we can have that unless the builder has a chance to plan with a reasonable degree of continuity. That must mean some degree of reserves of land which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is the builders' raw materials.
If, between the time when the builder buys the land and the time when he uses it the land goes up in value, it can no doubt be said that that is a profitable speculation, but I cannot see that he has done anything really very wrong, and I cannot think that it would be right for this House to exhort the builder to live on a hand-to-mouth basis, dismissing men every time he was having an idle time or could not get any building land, and trying to take them on again at other times.
If, as a result of planning control, prices are too high, and if it is agreed that the present policies and higher standard of living are likely to increase the demand, and if, as I think, there are


some prices that are too high, we must see how planning control is working. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suggested that in some quarters the word "planning" was a dirty word, but I myself firmly believe in planning, in the principle of planning. As a greater lover of the countryside, I do not want to see one single acre sprawled over with urban development that is not necessary. Having said that, I must add my belief that there is a lot of very bad planning, and that there are aspects of planning control which need looking at, and which can be improved.
In the first place, we have to remember that as land is a basic commodity for practically every activity, as well as for housing, hospitals, and so on, there are a tremendous number of contestants, not only for the limited area of this island but for that very much more limited area in which people want to live. I get the impression that in certain areas planning is carried out very much with the idea of large open spaces and areas of green belt, but with very little consideration for the needs and demands of the customers—the general public.
My first worry about the present situation—and it ties in with much that has been said by my right hon. Friend and by a number of other speakers who have suggested that some sort of regional planning organisation should be considered—is whether the present system really is capable of giving the right priority to the really fundamental factors which do, in fact, determine movement of population. Those factors must be, in the first place, communications and, in the second place, the location of industry.
Trying to decide whether industry follows communications or communications follow industry is a little like trying to answer the question as to which came first, the chicken or the egg. Nevertheless, I suppose that it is broadly true that where industry has been established in the past, communications tend to connect with those areas and that, on the other hand, new industry comes in where communications already exist.
However that may be, the policies with regard to the movement of industry and the network of communications are fixed at national level, and are the

responsibility of the Board of Trade and of the Ministry of Transport. Although I fully endorse my right hon. Friend's belief that the answer is to provide more land for building, the success of that policy must depend on providing it in the right place; that is to say, at the places where industry can be persuaded to establish itself and where people can be persuaded to live. And the distance from their work that people will live will depend on the communications in and around the place of work.
In these respects, it is not the development plans prepared by local authorities that are the deciding factor. It is the policy of the Board of Trade and of the Ministry of Transport, and the location of industry will depend on the inducements which the Board of Trade holds out under the Local Employment Act, or, if the Board of Trade has no positive policy in the matter, it will depend probably more than anything else upon communications between the proposed factory and the sources of supply, on the one hand, and with markets, on the other.
The first essential of any development plan proposed at local level, therefore, is the broad framework resulting from estimates of future trends as seen by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport, but the impression that one now gets, rightly or wrongly, is that by making the task of initiating development plans the responsibility of county councils and of county boroughs, the national industrial and communications interests are superimposed on development plans that are primarily drawn from a local angle and not, as I think should be the case, the other way round.
With this in mind, it seems to me that this broad framework of the development plan can be drawn only by bodies with a much wider responsibility and taking a much wider view than can be expected of county councils or county boroughs. I shall not now suggest how those bodies should be composed, but I think that they must have on them representatives from the Board of Trade and from the Ministry of Transport, at any rate—and possibly from other Ministries. For the rest, I would hope that there would be representatives of the areas they control or for which they plan, but not necessarily delegates from the local authorities.
The present situation also gives rise to the question whether we have the chain of responsibilities right. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend, who is the Minister responsible for planning, can do little more than fill in the framework supplied to him by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport. Other questions arise, particularly when we bear in mind the case which happened in Kent only a few months ago, when my right hon. Friend's planning decision with regard to a line of pylons was overruled by the Minister of Power. We should get into our minds quite firmly which ought to be the overriding considerations in matters of this sort and who ought to exercise them.
My second ground of concern about the adequacy of the present system of planning follows largely what has been said by other hon. Members. I am referring to the areas round our great cities. In short, it simply does not seem sense to me that the basic planning functions should be split, as in the case of London, between ten to twelve county councils and several times that number of county borough councils. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend tell us about his regional conferences, but I doubt whether, however good that co-operation may be and however much supervision his Department may exercise over development plans, it is sensible not to have a body with regional representation responsible for these plans, particularly bearing in mind the transport and trade problems which I have mentioned. Every major office development in London can have repercussions over a very large area. It may increase housing demands in places as far away as Reading, Guildford, Bromley, or St. Albans, and it all adds to the enormous transport problem of the London region.
This regional idea has attractions quite apart from the conurbations. It has never seemed to me sensible to divide planning responsibilities, even in county areas, between county councils and county borough councils. Just as in conurbations, where something which happens in London may affect a much wider area, the development of a county borough must affect the use of the land around it, in the administrative county in which that county borough is geographically situated. I should have thought that there was an overwhelming case for a body

either over and above both these bodies, or for the county council, to take overall responsibility in planning matters.
I do not want, and I do not think that anybody wants, to remove purely local decisions from local bodies. There would always be room for county boroughs and county councils, and even county district councils, in the filling in of the broad framework of the development plan produced by the regional board and for doing such things as town maps and administrative planning control. But even in the matter of administration, even where purely local matters are concerned, I do not think that it is always apparent that we have the best possible balance between the advantages of local knowledge and the disadvantages of local vested interests.
The price of, land emphasises the enormous value of planning permission. It is absolutely essential that any decision which results in conferring or withholding planning permission should be taken objectively, and, with the best will in the world, it simply is not always possible for very local people to divorce from their decisions personalities or even personal interests. I am reminded of a village which I visited not long ago, in Northamptonshire. It was a most delightful and extremely attractive village, the sort which I thought existed only in the Cotswolds, and that is the highest compliment that I can pay it.
Like so many villages, it had about half-a-dozen old houses of about the average age of the houses in the village spreading out along the roads leading to it. Those houses—actually, I think, there were four, but to be on the safe side I have said six—have been made the excuse for in-filling for no less than 40 other houses since the war and since planning control came into force. The result is complete ribbon development between that village and Northampton. It was appalling to look at and impossible to conceive that anyone who took an objective view could have allowed it to happen. The only conclusion to which one can come is that in that case, as in many others, the local people responsible had been unable to see the wood for the trees because they were too near to it.
I have other cases in mind, such as that of a quarry being opened in a village where the bulk of the people in the


neighbourhood were very much against it, whereas there were a few who, although there was no unemployment, had an eye on the better and more convenient jobs which they would get. In these circumstances, feeling runs much too high, in my view, for an objective decision to be taken on whether it is sound planning to open that quarry in that village.
Another point which one is shutting one's eyes to if one does not recognise it is that in very many parts of the country one is made aware of a real feeling among a great many people who come into contact with planning that planning is not fair. There is a widespread feeling that someone is getting a better deal than someone else. This is largely a result of the secrecy with which so many pinning authorities approach their work. They fail to publish the reasons for a decision and that can be particularly damaging when, to all intends and purposes, the case is similar to one upon which a different decision had been made a few weeks before.
Perhaps more important, when they give reasons they fail to try to ensure that they are consistent with reasons which they have given in similar situations before and which they intend to stick to in future. We must remember that it is only when a planning application is turned down that my right hon. Friend comes into it and there is any question of a public inquiry.
In think that in certain circumstances there is definitely a case for decisions being taken by a body which, although relatively local, would be sufficiently remote to be objective. I do not want to go into how those bodies would be composed, but I do not support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) for a super-planner, who sounds to me a most unattractive person, quite apart from the difficulties of finding him.
Before leaving the matter of planning, there are one or two minor points which are worth consideration. One concerns the very rigid distinction which continues to be drawn between the industrial use of land and its use for other purposes. That seems to me a wholly obsolete distinction in many cases with regard to

light industry. It is a relic of the days of the "dark, Satanic mills", but many light industrial factories can no longer be called unpleasant to look at by any stretch of the imagination. They are not a nuisance.
If we could get away from this rigid distinction, although it would not solve any problems, some of them might be made a good deal easier, particularly in smaller towns or large villages which inevitably, in many cases, have a declining agricultural population owing to mechanisation on the land and where the introduction of light industry might be a valuable economic and social addition.
The second problem arises aver the rigid adherence on occasions to densities. Sometimes this produces some very odd results. I have in mind a case in which the cartogram area concerned was relatively homogeneous throughout, but during its early stages of development a density had been approved by the local planning authority somewhat above the average which had originally been laid down for the whole area. The result was that, by the time the development was about half-way through, to get the sums right and the total population for that area the same as it was in the development plan the density had to be so reduced as to be almost wholly uneconomic. This seems to me a great economic waste of land in areas like London, where there is a tremendous pressure extending throughout the whole area of the Home Counties. It is things of that sort that make the "science" appear to be regarded as much more important than the actual practical effect.
I want to say a few words about betterment. In view of what has been said, it is just as well to remind ourselves of what the Uthwatt Committee said about it. After considering all the various ideas which had been put forward and tried in the past, the Uthwatt Report said:
There is no prospect that either method will be any more successful in the future, mainly because their first requisite is one which cannot be satisfied, viz., the identification or segregation of the strict 'betterment' element in the total increase in value of any property…We are forced to the conclusion that no ad hoc search for 'betterment' in its present strict sense can ever succeed, and that the only way of solving the problem is to cut the


Gordian Knot by taking for the Community some fixed proportion of the whole of any increase in site value without any attempt at precise analysis…
That is worth bearing in mind, particularly in view of some of the suggestions put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill and by several other Members. Even the Uthwatt Committee, after the most exhaustive inquiry, was quite unable to find a formula for deciding what element in any particular case or in general could be treated as betterment.
The Uthwatt Committee made two recommendations. It divided the problem into that of the urban land and that of what it called undeveloped land, which by and large was rural land. It was the recommendations for the rural land which found their way into the 1947 Act. The urban land recommendations were based upon a straight site valuation similar to the forms of site value rating which are used in certain parts of the Commonwealth and in America.
In the context of the 1947 Act, however, the important part about the urban recommendations of the Uthwatt Report was that that Committee recognised that if it took for the community more than, at the most, 75 per cent. of the increase in value, that would be taking away the inducement to the private owner or private developer and that would defeat the whole object of the exercise. The 1947 Act, unfortunately, did not make that recognition and it set the development charge at 100 per cent. of the difference between the unrestricted value of the property and its existing use value.
Many people have thought that that might have been the main reason why the 1947 Act broke down, but I have doubts about it. I used to agree with that view, but I think that the main cause was that it became so complicated. The Central Land Board reported as early as 1949–50 that
The evidence available to the Board of prices paid for land suggests that sales at or near existing use value are more the exception than the rule…The theory that the development charge would leave the developer unwilling or unable to pay more than existing use value for his land is not at present working out in practice.
The reason probably was that the whole concept of the 1947 Act, as, indeed, of

any of these schemes, for defining betterment became too complicated.
Land being a basic commodity, and particularly a commodity which we encourage in the House of Commons—and the Opposition seem to be equally anxious to encourage it—should be spread over a much wider section of the community, it seems to me essential that any control over the prices or any form of development charge should be based on a principle which is readily understood. As Lord Dalton said in one of his speeches when he was a Member of this House:
We admit that the development charge was open to much criticism and much misunderstanding, and was not, perhaps, one of the happiest inventions of the legal mind in our time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 16th December, 1952; c, 25.]
After consideration, although there was a time when I took another view, I am inclined to agree that that was what killed the 1947 Act.
Therefore, however much we may talk about betterment, as the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill has talked about it, we must face the fact that, although an enormous amount of thought has been given in the past, nobody has been able to produce a sensible way of sorting out what is betterment in a manner which is either accurate or is readily explainable to ordinary people other than lawyers and economists. That is its great snag.
As a result of that, one has to face the proposition that probably only two things—the two extremes—can be done with land. We can nationalise it, which people understand—and from the point of view of the Opposition they probably understand it only too well. Alternatively, we can have a free market. I very much doubt, however, whether anybody can devise a satisfactory arrangement to have something in between which will work any better than the 1947 Act.
I remind those who have stuck rigidly to Clause Four, and who are anxious to nationalise land, that if they are sincere in believing that we Can have a property-owning democracy, with people owning their own houses, and a reasonable degree of security for any form of private industry to carry on, it is necesssary to create some sort of interest in land, which it would be difficult to differentiate


very much from the existing tenure of freehold. That is one of the big problems. That, however, is not my problem or the problem of any of us sitting on these benches.
I am convinced that having once got to a stage of a two-tier system of prices, which was already indicated by the Report of the Central Land Board and was recognised by the 1954 Act, the situation in which people who buy land at the full market price can themselves have it taken from them by compulsory acquisition at a lower price without any means of finding out that they are moving into an area where that is likely to happen, cannot be justified under any circumstances. If there is a case for betterment and if a means can be devised, we should look for it in the realms of taxation. For my part, I find it' difficult to see where we can find a satisfactory arrangement.
I used to have considerable liking for the site value basis, but here again the difficulties are enormous. It works in various parts of the world, but as far as I know it has never been tried in conjunction with planning control. In this country, the value of a site depends upon what planning permission one gets. It is difficult to believe that one could get a sufficiently forward-looking planning system to give a site valuation which would be realistic and would not lead to enormous anomalies. We have already an anomalous tax system operated by the Inland Revenue and we have a great many anomalies in planning. I cannot believe that by marrying them together we should get a healthy child.
I come to the conclusion that the only solution to the problem is, as my right hon. Friend has suggested, the supply of more land available for building. I do not believe that it can be fully successful, however, unless many of the present planning arrangements are subjected to a thorough scrutiny and review and, if possible, a considerable part of the responsibility is transferred away from the strict local planning authority to something in the nature, not of regional conferences, but of a regional planning authority.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: There are a number of very

interesting points which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has raised, and I would rather like to debate them all, but as I want to make some points of my own, I must resist that temptation. I think I ought to say in passing that the Danish system which a number of towns have not only includes site values but very complicated planning provisions. So far as I know, there is no difficulty in applying the site values system of taxation in that country, and, I believe, in others.
One other minor point in regard to the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he admitted that the two-tier system was difficult, and he gave that as one of the reasons for his dissatisfaction, but I find it rather difficult to understand how he voted for the 1954 Act, which created a three-tier system.

Mr. Corfield: I can explain that perfectly easily. I was not in the House.

Mr. Skeffington: That may clear the hon. Gentleman, but certainly that argument cannot be made by any other hon. Member on that side of the Committee. My main quarrel with what he said is his defence and justification, and the Minister at one point used the argument himself, that a high price for land was not necessarily a bad thing because it might compel the most valuable use of land. By that, I suppose he meant the most profitable use of land, which is something from which I would recoil very strongly, and I would hope from which all hon. Members on this side would also recoil.
First, on the grounds of economic justice, I resent having to pay high prices for land to landowners who themselves have produced nothing. If I am buying a valuable machine into which much research and workmanship has gone a reasonable price is obviously justified, but in the case of land, which the whole community has made valuable, I see no justification at all for paying vast sums because society must use a particular piece of land. My second reason, which follows straight on the economic argument which the Minister used, is that it means that for all social and useful development the community always has to pay the highest commercial price.
For the reasons I have just given, I resent that, and I do not see why, if we


want to build hospitals or schools, or indeed residences, the local authority wishing to proceed with the development, or as one of my hon. Friends from Birmingham said, the private developer, should have to pay for that land the most commercially profitable price. In other words, the price for a hospital has to be equated with the price which can be paid by a greyhound racing promoter, a funfair or whatever may be the most commercial profitable use for that land. It seems to me to be not only an economic wrong but morally completely unjust, and I am surprised that we have had that point of view put forward by hon. Members opposite, because I am ashamed that it should be so.

Mr. Gough: Does the argument which the hon. Gentleman is deploying really mean the compulsory purchase of land at below its market value?

Mr. Skeffington: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will stay in the Chamber long, but I hope to be able to deploy some of my own proposals in due course.
I do not want to be unduly politically provocative, though I think we were all excused after the first part of the Minister's speech, but I hope that the Committee and the country outside will face political facts. The truth of the matter is that, whenever one is dealing with the problem of land and landowners, the Conservative Party is at its most vulnerable, for the simple reason that large landed interests are an integral and important part of the Conservative Party. We must face this fact. Indeed, Disraeli himself gloried in it, as hon. Members opposite still do. They always approach land problems with a delicacy and tenderness which they would not show to the trade unions or some other interests.
History is full of evidence, although I do not want to deploy this argument at too great length. This is the only country in the world, outside one or two parts of the Commonwealth, which retains the purely feudal tenure of private leaseholds, and in the House, and no less in another place, on twenty occasions have Bills to change that system been blocked. The Commit tee may wonder why it is, when we never have the Parliamentary time to discuss

Reports of Royal Commissions like those on marriage and divorce, taxation and offices, on which noshing was done until a Private Member introduced a Bill, and we are told that we never have the time to look at [these problems, yet we have had five complicated Town and Country Planning Acts since 1951.
The major purpose of these Acts was not that there was a need to deal with the situation resulting from the 1947 Act under its betterment proposals, but because it was the deliberate policy to restore as soon as politically convenient the free market value for land publicly acquired. I am quite certain that that was the purpose. It is interesting when we look back to 1952 and 1953, to find that the present Prime Minister said on 13th July, 1954, that he was not introducing a charter for landlords but a charter for developers, but an hon. Member who is no longer with us, Sir Ian Horobin, said, that the Bill was only a temporary expedient and that it would not be very long before the process was completed by another Measure. I believe that what Sir Ian Horobin said is What most people and the landed interests knew.
In 1959, we had the other Measure We warned the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South and the Government, in full private and public discussion, that the 1959 Act would result in an astronomical further increase in the price of land. A lot was said at the time about the Act being necessary to protect the little man and give him market value if his home was publicly acquired. We had the Pilgrim case, which arose out of a different point, thrust down our throats.
There was an Amendment, which I myself moved in Committee, which would have confined the provisions of the 1959 Act to the owner-occupier in the case where his land had been acquired and which would give him the market value for it. We moved this Amendment confining the proposals of market value in the 1959 Act to the residential owner-occupier. The Postmaster-General, as he now is, said it was unnecessary. He said:
When one turns to the ordinary case of an owner-occupier who is subject to compulsory purchase procedures, then we find that, as a general rule, the owner-occupier does in fact receive the market value from the


acquiring local authority."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee D, 2nd December, 1958; c. 57.]
In one or two sentences, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry let the cat out of the bag for the residential owner-occupier was already getting market value. The 1959 Act was not necessary for him.
One further consequence of the 1959 legislation was not only to restore market value but to give what I called market value plus. If we look at Sections 18 and 20, we find that even in a period up to five years after land has been acquired on the terms of the market value, a private landowner can go back to the acquiring authority if it is making a more valuable use of land than at the time of acquisition, and demand and get additional compensation.
So one sees this traditional characteristic of the Conservative Party coming up right the way through this legislation. I need hardly tell the Committee that if the acquiring authority uses the land for a less valuable purpose than the planning permissions or assumptions at the time of purchase, the private landowner does not have to give anything back to the local authority. That sort of thing applies only the other way round.
As a result of all this a great deal of our social development is being thwarted and twisted. What can we think of a state of affairs when for the Cromwell Road Extension within the County of London the L.C.C. had to pay more for the land than the cost of the whole of the work? It is absolutely absurd. Take the Piccadilly site, which I very much regret was not able to be bought by the London County Council so that it could have been made an area of comprehensive development. Sir Milner Holland told the inquiry that the cost of the entire work—the cost of the salaries, the wages, the materials and all the professional advisers—would come to £3 million and that the cost of the site—that small site—would be £4 million. It is a fantastic state into which we have got. Yet the Minister and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South were justifying the position.
But, of course, even before 1959 prices were high. The community has always paid pretty highly to the few great land

owners to go on their land. Sir Frederick Pollock, in his great land book in 1883, "The Land Laws of England", said:
The land near our great towns is a monopoly of the landed gentry upon which you go at their terms.
Because of that we had gradually, particularly during the First World War, to build up some system of public acquisition so that some needs of the community could be met. Otherwise, if one had a reluctant seller one would not be able to provide the service which the community needed.
Even before the 1959 Act we had the new Bucklersbury House on three acres of land costing £2·5 million. Last year an insurance firm in the City of London was willing to pay £135,000 a year rent for a site of less than an acre in Queen Victoria Street. It was calculated that if one parked one's car in that London street throughout the working week one should pay £225 a year in rent, because that is how the rent of eight square yards there would work out.
The social consequences of these phenomenal land prices are something which we shall ignore, or attempt to justify as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South has tried to do, at our peril. We can see the social difficulties arising time and time again. I noticed a letter in the Guardian from the Vicar of St. George's, in Camberwell, a constituency I used to represent on the L.C.C., in reply to a letter which had said that it was a good thing—this is perhaps the view of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South—from almost every point of view that land at the moment is at such a high cost. The vicar said:
…from every point of view except perhaps the human…
He also said:
As the vicar of a not untypical parish in the County of London I have to face the fact that anyone whom I marry is unable to get accommodation through the council housing list for at least ten years. (This in spite of the local authority's magnificent housing record.) There are over 5,000 on the housing list.
He also says that the thing to do is for people to move out; but with land at a premium that is impossible.
Not long ago the staff architect of Wates Limited, Mr. K. W. Bland, speaking at a meeting of the Town and


Country Planning Association, said that many of the sort of people who used to buy a Wales house before the war were earning £3 or £4 a week and in a similar sort of job now would be earning between £600 and £800 a year but were virtually being priced out of buying houses. He said:
Today land, except in remote places, costs a quarter or more of the total cost of the building.
This is the staff architect of one of the largest firms in the country building ordinary residential houses. As a result he suggests that if a person earning £800 a year spends a quarter of his income on purchasing his house—the maximum permitted by building societies—he cannot afford a house costing more than £2,300, the site cost of which should be £600 at the most. However, with the price of land as it is, it means that these people are outside that figure and would not be able to get a loan. Alternatively, they would have to travel 40 miles out of town to find a site.
Earlier, one or two hon. Gentlemen said—I am not certain whether the Minister agreed—that they did not know much about the pressures being put on the owners of green belt land either in London or in the other so-called green belt areas. I call in evidence the estates correspondent of the Guardian—he seems to me to be extremely well-informed on property matters; I read him very regularly—who wrote in the issue of 16th October last year:
…already owners of green belt land are accepting up to £100 an acre cash down for nothing but an option to buy it if eves permission to develop it is granted. In some areas the humble members of small district councils exercising delegated planning powers are being plied with embarrassingly lavish hospitality, and divisional planning officers are being told 'That's a shabby-Booking car you've got, isn't it?' though its celullose gleams factory-fresh.
He also wrote:
In effect the property market is betting a huge and rapidly mounting sum that it will succeed in breaking planning control, or, alternatively, that it will get its money back in the form of compensation (at current market prices) for the refusal of permission to cash by development the speculative values it is creating—which would speedily produce the same result.
I call this in evidence of what is happening throughout the country.

Mr. H. Brooke: Is the hon. Gentleman complaining that these people are going to lose their money—because they are?

Mr. Skeffington: I hope that that is the case. I was dealing with the point that it has been denied in many quarters that this is happening in the green belt as a result of the Minister's 1959 Act. It is happening, and we want even stronger statements than those we have heard from the Minister, not only about the green belt round London but also in other places.

Sir Leslie Plummer: And an assurance that they will lose their money.

Mr. Skeffington: Yes, and an assurance that these people will lose their money.
I want now to turn to the county of Middlesex and my own constituency. As my right hon. Fiend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, land in the county, according to the valuer of the county council, has trebled in value since the 1959 Act. The Greater London area is where these land prices are at their highest. In my own constituency, twenty-five acres could be bought for an open space at Yeading for about £1,429 an acre in 1955. The Borough of Ealing now desires to buy 61 acres of adjacent land, but the price has risen from £1,429 per acre to more than £8,000 per acre. That has happened in this short time.
We have another problem arising which the Minister has created by taking the lid off land prices in this way. He has put himself in a very embarrassing position in refusing local authorities the opportunity to go forward with land purchase schemes of their own. In 1955, the Hayes and Harlington Council wished to buy the site earmarked for its civic centre. It could then have done so at a price of about £1,400 an acre. The price today is likely to be £5,000, or £6,000 or £7,000 an acre. We shall thus have the Minister or his predecessors to thank for adding £30,000 or £40,000 at least to the cost of this site because the local authority was not able to put it in 1955. Why should the Minister help the landowner in this way?
In Stanmore there is a welfare scheme for which land would have cost £1,500 before the 1959 Act and which will now cost £36,500. If the hon. Member for


Gloucestershire, South thinks that this is the best way of getting the most valuable use for land, is he saying that some commercial profitable enterprise is worth more than a welfare scheme? The welfare department in Edgware had another scheme the ground for which before the 1959 Act could have been bought for £9,000. This has now swollen to £28,000, and I understand that the local authority has had to withdraw because it cannot contemplate such a cost. An educational project in Enfield would have needed £5,044 for the land before the passage of the 1959 Act. Now it will cost £11,000.
The result is that we may or may not be getting the most valuable use of the land but that somebody is making a large sum of money to which he is justified neither morally nor economically.

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman is misquoting me. I never said that this was the best way of doing this. I said that if it had had the effect of making the use of land more economical in certain cases, it would not have been an unmitigated nuisance.

Mr. Skeffington: The Minister used the same argument. I hope he will withdraw, as the hon. Gentleman has.
Despite all the difficulties about betterment, there is no reason for shirking the problem and pretending, as the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) did, that nothing can be done about it. I believe that the Uthwatt solution, of public authorities acquiring land, to be developed is one way in which the community can put both some curb on prices and have the kind of comprehensive development which is essential in city centres.
It is a great pity that the London County Council did not have enough money for the redevelopment of Piccadilly. If that redevelopment could have been undertaken, I believe that it would have paid for itself without prices having to go to the fantastic heights which will probably eventually be reached. What has been done with the Elephant and Castle scheme shows what can be done and I think that that scheme will commend itself to every hon. Member. On Thursday we saw the model scheme which Willetts are developing, leasing

the land from the local authority for 125 years. It would not be wise to give the precise financial details, but it can be said that London ratepayers will not do too badly out of it, quite apart from the fact that the value of the land is to remain with the people of London. At the same time, commercial development is possible and there is some incentive for the commercial developer. I do not know why such an arrangement could not be applied generally, if the finance were available to the local authorities.
Where that sort of scheme is not possible, as it is not always, then at the least some of the inflated value, which we have all created, should go back to the community to help in other developments. I cannot see why there cannot be some kind of tax when planning permissions are given. It might also be useful if local authorities had the right to levy taxes on site values, which would be some way in which the inflated value of land could be returned to the whole of the people.
Great moral and social factors are involved. I was shocked by the way in Which the Minister rode off all the implications of the high prices of land and by the way in which nearly all his hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate followed his example. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) who at least recognised that there was a problem and who sought some way in which the community might not be wholly and in all ways the loser.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Gough: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) deserves the gratitude of the Committee for at least bringing some punch into the debate. I have been in the Chamber for the whole afternoon and I have not heard a speech from any hon. Member opposite comparable with the standard required far a debate on what is supposed to be a Motion of censure of the Government.
I imagine that the reason is that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have a thoroughly guilty conscience about this subject. Let us take one topic about which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington developed a great deal of heat—the difficulty for most people of


buying a house of their own. I remember very well when the party opposite made it absolutely impossible for people to buy houses of their own and when hon. Gentlemen opposite said that it was a deplorable and bad thing to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have only about 12 minutes and I am entitled to my innings, as hon. Members were to theirs.
It was best put by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), who admitted that the policy of the Labour Government had failed and then said that, to put things -fight, we Should now return to that Policy.
The problem before us is very simple, it is a question of the law of supply and demand. That is a law which is not recognised and appreciated by Socialists, but it goes back to the beginning of humanity. If people do not realise that, they should begin to think what a mess humanity has got into because of the scarcity of apples in the Garden of Eden. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what hon. Members are saying, but I am sure that they are pearls of wisdom. Before hon. Members opposite wax too heated on this subject, they should look at their own record in housing, building private houses, factories, and so on, and that of the Conservative Party since it has been in power. There is less land today because we have built so many more schools, factories and houses. These new houses have taken up considerable space. The Socialists must recognise this fact of life, that as more houses are built the scarcity becomes more pronounced and prices go up.
My object this evening is to look at this scarcity position. The picture is not as bad as hon. Gentlemen opposite painted it. Let us look at the picture and consider whether there are some scarcities which could be put right. I believe that there are. I believe that there is a fault in planning. I am a supporter of planning. I have spent a certain amount of my time in the Army and in the Navy fighting battles. A battle cannot be fought without planning, but planning is the first essence of the matter. After the plan has been made, action roust be taken.
Unhappily, planning today has got into a welter of bureaucracy. As a

result, there is bureaucratic delay in dealing with this problem. I want to be serious about this. I am not making a party point. Bureaucratic delay today is causing unnecessary shortages. I ask my right hon. Friend to give this consideration.
In my constituency there is the new town of Crawley, which is freely known as by far the most advanced of the new towns, and indeed, the best. More than once during debates in the House I have said that the unhappy result of the new towns is that they have not taken away from London one single person, or made any open space available in London. As soon as one takes people from London to the new towns, more people come in. That is understood, and that is why, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I am very much against further new towns unless they can be properly sited.
The siting of Crawley is one of the reasons for its success. It is sited on a main line railway and across communications running north and south, and east and west, and in recent years an active aerodrome has been developed nearby. I know that it is difficult to site new towns, but the position is that the new towns have not taken the problem of the population of south-east England one stage further.
We have some problems in Crawley at the moment. We have the problem of a change from the old situation of the development corporation to the new situation which will come into force within the next year or so. As a result of that—I want to make it abundantly clear that I have the highest possible regard for the authorities of the Crawley Development Corporation—there is a hiatus, a feeling of doubt, and a lack of policy. I have tabled a Question on that subject.
It is a difficult problem, but I consider that at present there is room in Crawley for more private enterprise building of private houses. House building has not been going ahead as fast as it should. This is having an effect on local industry. Also, it is creating a strain in Horsham and neighbouring towns. That is one of the reasons why the price of land is rising in those areas.
There is an extremely unnecessary delay in planning. I have here one or


two examples which have been given to me by a very eminent civil engineer, who has no special financial interest in the cases. For obvious reasons, I shall not refer to the actual localities, although I shall be very pleased to give them to my right hon. Friend, or mention them to any hon. Member outside this Chamber. One is in a town on the outskirts of London, with a population of about 39,000 people. This proposal involves the expenditure of approximately £1 million, and comprises about two acres. The development includes shops, offices, flats, public houses and garages.
The scheme was submitted to the borough council on 1st February of this year and approved in principle. It was then forwarded to the county council for overall planning consent. The county council, however, was unable to give a decision pending the submission and approval of a town plan. The borough council has informed my friend that a town plan cannot even be started until a traffic census has been taken, and that, thereafter, two years must elapse to clear formalities before overall consent can be given by the county council.
That is not an unusual case, by any means. The people who are interested in the development are normal human beings, and they will not wait for two years. They will employ their money elsewhere. They will enter into competition for land which is becoming more and more scarce. That is why I say that these delays are aggravating the situation. They may be essential, although I can hardly believe they are.

Mr. Chapman: After a certain period these people can appeal to the Minister. They have no need to wait for years.

Mr. Gough: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, because he has referred to another delay. These people can appeal to the Minister and, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, a further delay of some months will ensue. I have already pointed out that there will be a two year's delay in the case I have mentioned, and to that we must add another two months for an appeal to the Minister.
Another proposed development in London consists of three multi-storey

blocks, comprising an hotel, flats and offices. In this case general planning approval in principle has been given by the London County Council, which has intimated that a two-year period will be required to achieve overall planning consent, that period being broken down as follows: in the first year there have to be valuation clearances; the issue of compulsory purchase orders; the production of a block model, and approvals of interested Ministries, the Royal Fine Art Commission, and also three separate councils.
The third case I wish to mention is fairly well known to the Committee. For at least six years, to my knowledge, various developers have been putting forward to the British Transport Commission and the London County Council a proposal to develop 8½ acres over the railway from Victoria to Chelsea. It is a brilliant conception, but nothing has happened. The buck is passed from one authority to another.
This is a very serious and important problem. We must look for a greater expansion in the centres of these great conurbations. There must be much more leadership at the centre, and a much more careful check on unnecessary waste. If that can be done there is not a great deal of difference, basically, between the two sides of the Committee.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I always know when the Minister of Housing and Local Government has a weak case. In that event, he begins his speech by putting up a number of Aunt Sallies which he thinks describe the conduct or policy of the Labour Government, and he then knocks them down. That is exactly what he did today. He spent ten minutes or a quarter of an hour at the beginning of his speech on doing nothing else. I said to myself, "There cannot be much to come afterwards". I was right.
I want to say, in connection with what the right hon. Gentleman and other speakers have said, a few words about the legislation on this matter. I shall not go back to the Committees that sat on it. Compensation and betterment are fairly old subjects, but it is as well to remember one or two simple things about them. One is that, if a local authority buying land has to pay full


compensation at market price, the only fair corollary is that it should get the betterment that arises from the growth of the community and the improved and extended use of land.
We all know what happened in the nineteenth century. We know of the growth of the big landowners in London and other cities. What do we owe to them? That is a matter which history can best assess. The present position undoubtedly is that full compensation in the case of a local authority without betterment is unfair.
The 1947 Act was the only attempt that has ever been made to provide for both compensation and betterment. I could give my own reasons why it broke down, but they are not concerned either with the merits of the Act or the possibility or impossibility of providing for those two elements. I have no doubt that, with the hindsight we now have, we could provide for both of them. In that respect, I differ from the right hon. Gentleman.
What happened? The 1953 Act took away the betterment provisions—the development charges—and left the compensation at an abnormally low value. It was a perfectly fair value so long as the development compensation charges were fair. It thereby set up a two-value system—one for compensation in the case of purchases by local authorities and another for purchases by private individuals.
During the passage of that Measure it was suggested to the Prime Minister that he could perfectly well deal with the matter by providing full compensation. He refused to do so for exactly the reason I have just given, namely, that equitably, and in fairness, if there is to be full compensation there must also be betterment. He pointed out that the increase in the price of land which results in high compensation comes from the community and should go back to the community. I quoted his words in the debate on the 1959 Bill, and I shall not repeat them.
In the 1954 Act, the Government went one worse. They provided three alternative methods. One was the full price to the private purchaser. Another was the reduced price—it was actually existing use in 1947 development value—in most cases of a purchase by a local

authority. There was a different price if there had been an admitted claim and in certain other cases. That system was complicated, unworkable and unfair.
In 1959, the Government said that they proposed to give full compensation to the private purchaser. They produced a most elaborate piece of machinery for doing so. I am not concerned with the piece of machinery. I merely say that there were 'two points about it. One was that as a proposition taken by itself it was fair. It was full compensation as compared with a full price when sold in the open market. What was unfair about it was that it lacked any provision whatever for betterment.
When this was put to the right hon. Gentleman his answer was that one could not provide for betterment. What 'we said on that Bill was that on a Government Bill, given the ordinary rules of the House of Commons and a number of other matters, such as not 'having a Ministry of our own, we, the Opposition, obviously could not provide a betterment system. We said that we accepted it only on the understanding that we proposed to tax capital gains. Hon. Members who are interested in this will find it in HANSARD. We said that, as between the central Government, who may profit from taxation, and local government we also proposed a financial readjustment.
I shall not go into the whole long story now, but our case all along has been simply that there must be provision for the two elements. It may be fair, so far as it goes, to provide full compensation. After all, the person who may receive it may not necessarily be the person who would pay betterment, but it is not fair from the public point of view and that of the local authority to have statutory provisions which give full compensation unless one can also provide for betterment. We say it is possible to provide for betterment and I have given one instance of a possible way of doing it.
Having put up his Aunt Sallies and knocked them down to his own satisfaction and, I think, to the boredom of a certain number of other people, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that there was a strong theoretical case for a betterment levy. There is a strong theoretical case for a betterment levy and I can give practical reasons for it. I


now turn to the particular manifestations of the trouble with which we are concerned today.
The Times, in a leader on the matter this morning, ended with two sentences which I commend, not so much to the right hon. Gentleman himself as to other hon. Members behind him who have spoken in the debate. It said:
The one unforgivable thing would be for the Government to pretend that land prices, however high, do not matter. The social hardships they can, and do, cause cannot be dismissed merely because they may be irrelevant to 'pure' economics.
"'Pure' economics" means the economics of the open market, the increasing prosperity of society without regard to who shares in it. Those are the sort of things which are meant by the phrase "'pure' economics" in that connection.
To do the right hon. Gentleman complete justice—for I certainly would not wish to do him anything less—he did not say that high prices did not exist. He said that high land prices were unavoidable, that is to say, we could not do anything about them. In a moment I shall turn to one or two things which he and his predecessors have done which are partly responsible for these high land prices. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say what he was doing about it in three ways. One was to preserve the green belt. Another—and this brought the breath of the sea for the first time into the debate—was that he was keeping the coastline intact. That was a very useful, but not a very direct contribution. Lastly, he pointed out that everyone was better off. Those were the contributions of the responsible Minister, so far as he chose to state them, towards what, after all, is a rather urgent matter.
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman one or two of the things which have made the position very much worse. Then I shall make a few suggestions to him. Let us begin with the things that he has done. The effect of the legislation I have been talking about was to increase sharply the price of land—and not merely the price to acquiring local authorities, but the price to other people because, as soon as local authorities have to pay more, that brake on rising prices is removed. The result is that, although the Financial Memorandum of the 1959 Act anticipated a rise of about a quarter,

we have had a rise in the south of England of at least two or three times on the average and, in a great many cases, a great deal more.
Did the Government make an honest estimate of the effect that the Act would have? We must assume they did. Did they have the best advice about it? We must assume they had. Why, then, were they completely and utterly wrong in the estimate they made? It will be interesting to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary the answers to those questions. I should like to know.
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I have already pointed out the greatest inconsistency between what the Prime Minister said in connection with the 1953 and 1954 Acts and what was done by the 1959 Act—the exact opposite of what he refused to do in the earlier one. I do not attach too much importance to consistency in matters of this sort. The reason I do not attach too much importance to it is that this is a complex and varying problem and that estimate, if honestly made at the time, is one of the best bits of evidence towards it being a complex, variable and very difficult question. That is one thing that has been done, but there is something else.
The Government have responsibility for some dealings with houses which have a considerable affect in this matter. What have they done? Through the operation of the Rent Act they have turned out a large number of people from houses in which they lived. I am not talking merely about evictions. I am talking about people who have had to find somewhere else to live because the landlord wanted to sell the house, or for whatever reason. I shall not go into that controversy again. That had a considerable effect on the price of land. It pushed some people out from parts of London and left others searching to get a house at any cost. If a tenant is bound to pay whatever price he is asked, then prices go up, the price of laid and the price of the house. The two are closely connected.
Again, if council housing is restricted and councils are unable, through lack of subsidy and owing to high interest rates, to build the number of houses which they had been building—and the number has been steadily falling over the last two


or three years under the present Government—what will happen? No doubt more houses will be built by private enterprise, but they will be houses at increasing prices. That is exactly what has happened. Not only has the price of land gone up, but the price of houses to buy and the price of other building has gone up, too. For the moment, let me confine myself to that.
What else have they done? The competition in the centre of London is not just that of one house with another, but also that between houses and offices and houses and factories. I will make clear what I mean by the last two words in a moment. The Government have refused to allow industrial development certificates to be applied 'to offices, and I have heard no satisfactory reason for that refusal. Of course, it makes the task of local authorities much more difficult in trying to diminish the number of offices in the centre of London and other large towns.
We were told by 'the right hon. Gentleman that it bad something to do with the way in which offices and factories were built. He said, "You always build your own factory, but you do not often build your own office." My answer is that that is not the case. One of the first bodes to call 'attention to the whole of this problem was, very appropriately and rightly, the Royal Fine Art Commission, which published a Report in December last year. In dealing with the difficulty about the centre of towns, it took as the first point of comment the fact that
The need for concentrating very large administrative staffs in effigies in central areas is often greatly exaggerated. It depends in part on what seems to us to be a mistaken sense of prestige.
So it is. It is that mistaken sense of prestige which, in its view and mine, is causing a great deal of the difficulty about excessive office development in the middle of large towns.
What about factories? The point about factories has always seemed to me to be that under existing legislation when a man moves out of a factory to a larger factory, or to a factory somewhere else, no one can prevent someone else from going into that factory and causing the whole trouble over again. As long as that is the case we are bound to have in the middle of the large towns this form

of competition between offices, factories and houses—and who is to suffer at the end of the day? I shall have something to say about that.
I turn to one or two of the suggestions which could be put forward. I have already mentioned capital gains in land as a subject for taxation, and I have done so because they seem to me to be the taxation equivalent of betterment and only fair. This would certainly have a very sobering effect on the market in land. What else is there? It seems to me that what we want to do is to get out of places such as Greater London at any rate a proportion of the industrial and office accommodation which is there at present. We want powers to review the use when there is a change of factory ownership. We want industrial development certificate provisions for offices. We want proper powers of control.
We may well have to look again at the rather difficult question of compensation on refusal of planning permission, which at present depends on a provision of the 1947 Act which is rather obscure and not altogether satisfactory.

Mr. Gough: The hon. and learned Member said that he wants to see factories and offices moved out of central London. What guarantee can he give that other firms will not come into London to fill those places?

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member cannot quite have heard what I said. I regard that as one of the defects in planning legislation at present. I think that there ought to be a provision by which the use can be reviewed on a change of ownership. That is not open to review at present, and it is one of the difficulties. I am glad that the hon. Member agrees with me about that.

Mr. Manuel: He does not.

Mr. Mitchison: I turn to the broad question of the redevelopment of the centres of towns, on which my right hon. Friend touched. I thought that he made a "right masterly" speech on the subject, if he will not mind my saying so.
At present, this planning is by purely negative control, and I cannot see how, with a purely negative control, we shall ever get the centres of our large cities right. By the centres I mean not just the tiny core of Piccadilly Circus, or the


area around the Mansion House. I mean the centre in a much larger sense. The reasons we shall never do it are many and various. One is that all that the private developer will do, unless he gets a sharp lesson—as he sometimes does—is to build in the cheapest possible way for the maximum profit. That is his business, and we cannot expect him to do better than that.
On the other hand, the local authority has responsibility in the matter and whether it is done directly by the authority, or through an agency which, in effect, it controls, is a matter of finance, upon which I shall have a word to say in a moment. But the local authority is the body to do it, and it must not be precluded by financial or other considerations from embarking on such projects as Piccadilly Circus, and a great deal more than Piccadilly Circus in that part of London.
If the authority is to do that, the main difficulty with which it has to deal is what is sometimes called multiple ownership, which means not merely many owners but many lengths of lease and similar problems. Yet this must be done, and if it is not done we shall not discharge our duty to the future inhabitants of this country and we shall have a town which will compare disgracefully not merely with many towns in other countries but with much which has been built in the past. We cannot look at London and some Scandinavian capitals without feeling a little ashamed that we have been so much more motivated by considerations of private profit in this matter and have been unable to devise a single and beautiful plan for the centre of a great city such as this. It is not a very creditable record in that respect.
As I say, it must be positive control, that is, it must be done with I suggest the backing of a properly advised authority with a certain amount of central expert advice for, after all, not every local authority can have the services of leading people in this rather difficult and skilled business. It implies the considerable expenditure of money.
I was very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had got this far in recognising that there was something wrong with the state of Denmark. He did at least admit that the Government might

consider financing a new town in a proper case. He has never got nearly as far as that before. On previous occasions, he simply stood there with the most wooden expression he could possibly put on and said, "Not a penny, not a new town, nothing whatever in that line."
The right hon. Gentleman really must be thinking that there is something badly wrong, because he is one of the hardest people to move that I have ever met. Well, he did, and once he has done it let him also consider whether the Government ought not to have some responsibility for developing the centres of our old towns, too. I am not going into details of local authority finance, but they have not the proper equipment and the financial set-up quite appropriate to this. There is a case for an agency of some sort. At any rate, it has been done in the new towns and it ought to be done in many of the old towns, too.
I turn to a rather wider matter. This is not a question of housing, it is not even just a question of town and country planning as we understand it. It is, of course, tied up with at least two other important functions of Government. One of them, and the most obvious and clearest one, to which most hon. Members have referred in the debate, is employment. It is no use building houses unless we can link that up with employment, and it was because of the failure to do so that so much effort was wasted in providing house building in the wrong places in the years before the war.
We have to see that the two things go together on the matters about which I have been talking; for instance, the use of an old factory from which the previous occupants have moved; office building in the middle of cities, and a great many other things which hon. Members can quite easily think of for themselves. Housing and the functions of the Board of Trade are closely tied up. I have had experience of new towns, as have other hon. Members, and even in a venture like a new town it took considerable time to get the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Board of Trade to see eye to eye. How much more necessary it is in the case of the type of planning which I am inviting the Committee to consider.
The second thing with which this business is inextricably tied up is the question of transport. There is not the faintest chance of solving London's transport problem if we look at it purely as a transport problem, how to transport a given number of people in a given direction day by day. That is not the problem. The problem is how to link up the development of cites, the production of employment and the transport of the people. After all, every hour wasted in transport, in getting to and from work, is so much waste of the productive capacity of the community. This Government have a singularly bad record compared with others regarding industrial production and I think that kind of thing is one of the reasons for it.
When I heard right hon. and hon. Members talking today about expansive development beyond the green belts, I said to myself, "What are they thinking about? They have forgotten that the transport difficulty will be just as great and will be made a little worse by the greater distance from the centre." Do not let there be any misunderstanding about this. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and, to do them justice, I think the majority of hon. Members opposite, are determined, for good social reasons and reasons of amenity, to keep the green belts. We are determined to see that new green belts are established where they are proved to be necessary, and strictly defined and kept to. All the same, if the green belt is simply to be a gap—or, as my right hon. Friend called it, a ditch between one subtopia and another—it is a very limited intention indeed.
I cannot believe that we are really fulfilling the purpose of the green belt, or keeping these huge conurbations within reasonable limits, or promoting the best planning for the country as a whole if we accept without demur the building of more subtopias beyond the green belts. That is not the right the solution.
I want now to say a word or two about planning in general—

Mr. Norman Cole: I have been following the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech with great interest. With some of his points

I agree, but would he address his mind to that last point? If he does not want to go to the other side of the green belt, if he wants more planning, and all the other things of which he spoke, where is all the land to come from? It does not matter whether it is owned by a local authority, or a private developer—where is it to come from?

Mr. Mitchison: A factory or an office takes up much the same amount of land whether set up directly outside the green belt or elsewhere, and I am not suggesting any absolute prohibition in these matters. I merely say that it is very much better, if one possibly can, to make the green belt—again to use my right hon. Friend's phrase—where the town stops and the country begins, rather than to make it a ditch between two subtopias. I think that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) would himself agree, at any rate to that extent.
I turn for a moment to planning as a whole. I am quite certain that it must be not only planning as between housing, offices, industry, transport and the like, but country-wide planning. I agree with those—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself had something to say on the subject, and I will mention it in a moment—who suggested regional planning. This is not just a matter, as the Minister seems to think, of getting a number of planning authorities together and co-ordinating them—as that blissful phrase goes.
It is not that sort of question at all, but a much wider one. It is linked with employment and transport and it is nation wide. We now have the benefit of hindsight, and should not be ashamed to use it when necessary. My feeling about the new towns that we set up has always been that we directed them a little too much to the solution of particular problems—the excessive population of London, and this or that industrial purpose. It is a good thing that they should have been started in that way, but they should have been supplemented on a much wider national scale.
I should like it all to be regarded as a national question, as something that can be dealt with regionally rather than by individual planning authorities, but, still, as a national question. I should certainly not like to see the whole subject of


regional planning, or national co-ordination, whichever one likes to call it, left to the mere chance that the right hon. Gentleman can succeed in getting a number of planning authorities to agree. That is not good enough. It is a broad national question.
I have said most of what I want to say, but I want to return for a moment to the two sentences I quoted from the leader in The Times of this morning. Here, we are considering high prices in land. What frightens me about the high prices is not merely that they are high, but that they have risen very sharply in recent months. It is like a patient with a temperature. This is an outburst of fever of some sort, and one looks for the cause and the remedy, and one thinks of the results.
What will stop this rise continuing? According to the right hon. Gentleman, who is, after all, the responsible Minister in these matters, high prices are unavoidable. On that process of reasoning it appears unavoidable that they should go higher and higher. That is what has been happening. What is to stop this rise in price? As I see it, it is one of two things. There will either be a general economic crash in which land prices and a great many other things may be involved, or there will be a point when the ultimate consumer jibs. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members remember that land is not merely the builders' raw material. It is the raw material of human beings. We live on land. We dwell and work on it. Many years ago, more than a century now, David Ricardo was inclined to say that the land owner, the property owner, always won. That was very many years ago, but certainly he has been doing remarkably well lately.
What about the man who wants to live in a house or to use an office or factory? Take the man who wants to live in the house. At present, unless he can pay a high price for a house, with or without the assistance of a building society, he has nowhere to live. That applies to a great many people in the big towns. He cannot rent a house. He cannot get a council house because it has been the business and policy of the Government to restrict council housing. He is, therefore, driven to do what—go into lodgings? I do not know what happens to him. I wish that I did.
The number of people who will be driven to desperate extremities by increases in the price of land will go on increasing with the price. That is one social hardship which rising prices entail, perhaps the main one. It is not sufficient for the Government to behave like an ostrich and say that there is no problem, that it is unavoidable, that they cannot do anything about it, or that if they look after the green belt or the coast line all will be well. That is not the function of the Government. Their function is to see that this product of the free market does not result, on the one hand, in the hardship which I have been sketching and, on the other, in a form of injustice which people will not go on accepting. Those who buy land, whether to build on or to hold, get quite inordinate profits out of what is either a legislative muddle by the Government or their failure to do anything whatever about it. I think that it is more the latter than the former.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not make a Minister of Housing and Local Government speech—that is to say, spend a quarter of an hour in putting up Aunt Sallies and knocking them down. I hope that he will not pretend that there is no problem, or that there is no social injustice and hardship, but will tell us, for a change, what the Government propose to do about this problem, or whether they are to be bound for ever by Conservative idolatry of the profit-making free market in something which the citizens of the country must have—the land of the country.

9.29 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): The debate today is on a subject of the greatest possible human and public interest. Millions of people in this country want to own their own homes and they want to know that land is available at a price within their purse. I hope to be able to reassure them on both grounds this evening. [Interruption.] Certainly, there is a problem of where the houses are to go and how the price mechanism affects them. The problem is difficult enough if we are considering only where and how, but it is harder still if we try to tackle simultaneously the problems of compensation and betterment.
The debate has shown that unless widespread compulsory purchase is accepted, and widespread public ownership is accepted as well, land owners, big and small, simply do not want to sell if they are discouraged by some form of tax or levy on the land they own. It was the Leader of the Opposition who himself said during his wide-ranging speech that there is no easy solution.
The debate has shown that no common solution appeals, not only between the parties, but to all the members of one party. We have had recommended today by different hon. Members a return to Uthwatt and public ownership, compulsory purchase below the market price, a levy on the sale of land—that was from my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley); peripheral expansion of cities, more release of "white" land, a capital gains tax and control of offices by industrial development certificates. None of these, however, and nothing that is said today, can overcome the basic truth, which is now being generally realised and which planners have been preaching for years, that land is scarce and we must make the best possible use of it.
I should like to quote as an accurate statement of the position something that was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). Speaking of the Government, the hon. Member said that we had sterilised—rightly—large areas of land from development and had preserved a free market in those areas where development is permitted. That is a fair statement of the hon. Member's remarks. We are all aware of the rising demands against which we face the future, with rising population, increased prosperity and smaller households, which increases the number of dwellings per thousand in the population.
There are, therefore, emerging from this debate three interwoven themes: the availability of land, the price of land and whether and how part of the price should be siphoned off by the community. I will try to deal with each of those, in turn, and I hope that I shall not be accused of forgetting one of them when, for the moment, I am dealing with another.
I shall deal first with the shortage of land. The building industry is flat out.

There is scarcely any unemployment in the industry—[Interruption.]—in England and Wales. [An HON. MEMBER:" What about Scotland?"] I was speaking of England and Wales. We are told that there will be a shortage of land. Incomes are rising, population is rising and the number of households is rising, but so also is rising the amount of land allocated for housing.
Local planning authorities normally look twenty years ahead in their land planning allocation. On a national basis, there is sufficient land, either allocated or which will, without damage to major planning objectives, be allocated, including redevelopment and infilling, to cope with the rising demand of that time; but it will not necessarily cope in the more popular areas. One of our functions in this direction is to supply to the local planning authorities the basic statistics on future population, the prediction of household sizes and emigration and the picture of employment and the prospects of employment, and to interpret all these with our research staff so as to advise local planning authorities on the allocations that they should make for various purposes. I repeat, however, that there are at present in aggregate enough areas devoted, or that can be devoted, for housing to meet the predictable need.
As we all agree is natural, house builders look ahead. They want to have land in stock for several years' work. It is their raw material. If they fear a shortage, they will try all the harder to have even more in stock, thus creating the very shortage they fear. More land is constantly being released, not only as town maps and development plans are reviewed—and the Committee knows that that must be done every five years—but as planning applications for the use of land suitable for housing are made. There is, however, no guarantee that newly-released land will go to those builders with least land in stock. Of course, it is vital that the building industry should see its way forward, and my right hon. Friend has said that he will gladly examine any area where it is said there is not enough land in stock.
My right hon. Friend did, in fact, invite the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, three months ago, to


let him know, after it had told him of its general worries, of any area where the Federation said that there was not enough land in stock. It has since indicated two places, one shortly after the meeting, and the second only three weeks ago. My right hon. Friend arranged a meeting in connection with the first area and was able to point out space allocated for housing in the neighbourhood, which was still available. The second area is being studied.
Of course, my right hon. Friend remains willing to study any particular area where this allegation is made. What he cannot do is guarantee that every house builder will be able to acquire stock for several years ahead. There is not in any business this sort of security as of right. If one source of work is reduced, another has to be opened up. We must see that land is released ahead of need, but we cannot carry this to the point in every area that every house builder has his larder full.
I may be asked, why not? If the land is there for foreseeable future demand already allocated for housing, or in that part of white land which could one day be allocated, what harm would there be in releasing more or most of that land now? The fact is that it might well be snapped up by some of those who already have adequate stocks of land in hand. Secondly, it might be developed out of sequence, taking into account, say, communications or water supplies. Thirdly, it would be an unnecessary loss to agriculture or to whatever use was being made of that land at the moment.
The Committee must face the hard physical fact, unwelcome though it may be, that some communities, the most popular communities, either have or will have no more land available for development and no more in reserve. This is because further expansion in these popular areas would run up against major planning barriers, either scenic barriers—areas of great beauty or green belt barriers or agricultural land barriers. In nearly all cases, however, where this is so, there is available land now and in reserve in the form of "white land" in the neighbouring districts. I must, however, point out that there are whole stretches in the most popular counties which it can be foreseen will one day be

filled to their optimum, except only for redevelopment. Demand will then have to turn to what are now the less popular areas.
I can only repeat that there is or will be room allowed in the aggregate in the development plans for all the foreseeable demand problems, including the bulge, including rising standards of living, including overspill, and without endangering the major planning objectives. This is true for the foreseeable future as far as we can reasonably predict, but the most popular commuting area will tend to fill up first. There will still remain the less popular areas within the same radius. I suggest to the Committee that, by the time this belt outside the green belt but within commuting distance has been developed to the optimum, no doubt the less densely populated suburbs within the green belt will then be ready for re-development with higher densities. Meanwhile, the unspectacular but effective bringing into use of unnecessarily large gardens and such spaces will continually be helping.
I wish to take issue with one picture painted by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He gave the impression to the Committee that outside the green belt all is now chaos. He painted a picture of continuous subtopia outside the green belt. It is true that we and the Labour Government inherited sprawl, ribbon development and every sort of chaos in our countryside, but the present position is very different from that painted by the right hon. Gentleman. Let him try to build a house in the countryside. I spend most of my time refusing appeals by people who want, for sentimental and other reasons, to build in the towns or villages where they were born seeking to pass their lives there. Planning seeks to keep development compact. We agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the country should be country and the town town; outside the green belt development is only permitted in compact areas, except where there is a good agricultural reason.
It is not only the green belt that preserves land from sporadic development. There are areas of outstanding natural beauty, where there is special control of development, the National Parks, again


special control of development, and agricultural land, again special control of development. My right hon. Friend recently published the second edition of a pamphlet, "Your house in the country", which explains that no one can expect to be allowed to build a house in the country without seeking guidance from the local authority, to find out which villages and towns are being expanded, and in which he may build. So the picture is not as black as the right hon. Gentleman painted. We are determined to keep the town town and the country country.
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about commuting. It can be a great burden on the individual involved. But it is, after all, a matter of degree. Some people travel long distances and some people less, but, one and all, they took the decision to move out with their eyes open, knowing that there would fall an obligation on one of the family to commute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Besides, commuting may not be quite such a bad idea as some suggest as traffic improvements continue and if over the decades the working week continues to shorten as it has done in the past.
I should like to face one particular problem which may be in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen. It may be feared that in some areas all the land allocated for housing will be held undeveloped and, thus, an artificial land shortage will be created. I would remind the Committee that local authorities already have power to buy land compulsorily, if need be, for development, including private housing development where this is necessary. It is possible to envisage a situation where that would be a reasonable proposal. So much for my first attempt to give a picture of the space for housing position.
I turn now to prices. I would ask the Committee, first of all, to ignore in this debate shop and office land prices. They are very confusing when we are primarily discussing housing prices. Secondly, I would ask the Committee to follow the example set by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield and discuss prices not per acre but per plot, because the density allowed on an acre obviously makes a great deal of difference to the prices of plots.
Thirdly, I should like to assure the Committee that, though local authorities now have to pay market value for land, they are helped by a subsidy when they have to acquire land for housing of over a certain cost and they are helped by means of the general grant towards land purchase connected with education and specific grant in connection with classified roads.
The fourth thing that I want particularly to stress to the Committee about prices, is that they vary up and down the country. Today we have heard quotations of the top prices. These are the prices for the favourite areas near the centres of growth, but there are plenty of hon. Members here today, who, if they had the chance, could tell us that in their areas prices are not high. Prices in many areas have not even kept pace with the fall in the value of money since 1939. It is the popular, favourite areas alone which give this false impression. In many parts of the country land prices have not risen.

Mr. Manuel: Tell us which areas.

Sir K. Joseph: It is absolutely true, but I will not start a rush to those areas by quoting them.

Mr. Manuel: That is the best yet.

Sir K. Joseph: Once again, we are seeing an adjustment to present conditions which has been concentrated in a few years rather than spread out over two decades, as would have been the case but for the war. I suggest to the Committee that in the very different conditions of the thirties land tended to he under-valued. The suddenly increased prices to bring them into line with real values today and with demand has certainly caused a shock, and to the extent that demand has concentrated on an area limited not only by value but by communications and by consumer preference, prices have in these limited areas gone especially high.
Land is valuable. Whether the owner, who was probably originally a farmer, has held the land himself, has sold it direct to a developer or has sold it to a middle man, the price paid will not be decided in a vacuum. In his first contacts with the purchaser he will not have thought of the price out of his head with no reference to anything else.


The price paid will generally be no more than an ever-increasing proportion of the population in turn is willing to pay for it.
As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, when the consumer refuses to pay these high prices, then prices will tend to start to come down. [Interruption.] That is true. It is a basic economic fact. The fact is that incomes have risen, and are still rising. Most houses are bought through building societies, and the societies will only lend what they consider may prudently be borrowed on the earnings and prospects of the borrower. Full employment and rising standards of 'living and housing tend these days to be taken for granted, so even if more land than is needed for the next few years could be released it is unlikely that prices in the favourite areas would come down substantially. Developers and middlemen would tend to put the land released into stock.
Another criticism is that as prices rise developers are forced to build houses of smaller size and lower standards to keep within the prices purchasers can afford. It may well be true that profit margins are under pressure, but there is no evidence that either the size or the standard of housing is dropping. This is a point we shall watch. I remind the Committee that houses have to obtain both planning and byelaw approval, and this would certainly not be forthcoming if the size and standard were too low.
There are some good effects to be gained from high prices by the community, because greater prices and greater competition for large sites may force some developers back into the towns and cities, and as rents and incomes rise there should be opportunities for big and small alike in converting and redeveloping. If I am told that this takes too long, it ties up capital no longer than that tied up in the white land in the hope that one day it will obtain planning permission. High prices persuade us to make full use of the land we have.
Densities certainly used to be too high. Now—or rather recently—they are perhaps too low. Now perhaps we may strike a happy medium and make fuller use of land, including high buildings, without returning to the high densities of

the nineteenth century. That could also mean the fuller use of large gardens of old houses.
High prices for land are of great concern to the Government. My right hon. Friend will ensure the steady release of land wherever possible to replace land that is developed, but he believes that the capacity and willingness to pay sets the limit to prices. The only way to reduce prices, therefore, would be either to confiscate the land—and we must remember that the 1959 Act was no apposed by the Opposition, although the hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that it had mental reservations about the need to bring in a system of betterment or to reverse—

Mr. Mitchison: Mr. Mitchison rose—

Sir K. Joseph: I have very little time.

Mr. Mitchison: They were more than mental reservations. They occupied several columns of HANSARD.

Sir K. Joseph: The only way to reduce the price of land would be that mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman—to reverse the trend of growing prosperity and no one wants that. So far the price of land is not halting or slowing up development. The building industry is fully employed. If, for any reason, developers did prove less willing to go ahead, or lenders to lend, or purchasers to buy, because the price of land was disproportionate, that would certainly, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, tend to bring prices down.
Prices reflect demand. Prices do not just reflect the first figure. They reflect what the owner thinks the purchaser can afford to pay. I would remind the Committee that there has been some talk of speculators, but there has been some evidence that speculators have burnt their fingers. I have evidence that people have been buying farmland in the green belt, and now that my right hon. Friend has made his firm statement that there will be no housing or other use of the green belt they will find it difficult to dispose of that land at the price they paid for it.
A number of suggestions have been made and I will try to deal with a few of them, although I cannot possibly deal with all. First, the development charge has been mentioned, but I must ask the Committee to realise that, whatever its


merits or demerits, there is one thing which it will not do, and that is to reduce the cost of land. We had plenty of experience when it was with us to show that its result was to discourage owners from selling, and if owners are discouraged from selling there is less land available and that means that prices go up and not down.
Then we had invocations of Uthwatt. "Back to Uthwatt" we have been told, with all that Uthwatt means in the way of public ownership of land ripe for development. This would be a huge financial task and would create of the State and local authorities a huge landlord spreading steadily outwards as more and more land became ripe for development. I do not believe, for all the stress laid upon it by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that that would be acceptable to the public.
Several hon. Members referred to a capital gains tax. It is not for me to discuss a capital gains tax, since we are discussing the Vote of my right hon. Friend, but I point out that there is one thing which a capital gains tax is most unlikely to do and that is to reduce the price of land.
We have had further references to betterment and at least everyone has recognised that betterment is an extremely difficult concept to legislate. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was the first to say that there was no easy solution to betterment. I point out again that if betterment is to be levied on sale it is one more discouragement to prevent the landowner from bringing his land to market and, therefore, has nothing to do with the problem of reducing the price of land which is one of the primary objects of the debate.
Hon. Members have shown great interest in office control in ate centre of cities, particularly London, and I especially liked the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) to the importance of taking work to the workers. My right hon. Friend told the Committee something of what had been done to reduce the building of offices in the centre of London and, indeed, what we are now seeing is, the completion of the exercise

of the approvals given before policy tightened under my right hon. Friend's predecessor.
The example of the Government in moving many of their staff out of London and the persuasion of my right hon. Friend are succeeding, as prices for office land outside the centre of London are beginning to evidence. The fashion of building offices outside the centre is beginning to take hold. We regard this as a most important development which we shall seek to encourage, but I point out to the Committee that to apply to offices the control at present applied to factories would be almost certainly completely impracticable, although we shall continue to study it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am short of time, but, briefly, it is because offices tend to be built—and hon. Members on both sides want new offices built—for an unknown occupier, in most cases, and offices tend to play a part in city centre redevelopment. It is, therefore, difficult to control the user of that office when he is not known and particularly when he may so easily change by a sale of occupation.
I wish that I had time to refer to some of the interesting speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We had very valuable surveys of the problems and suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and, because of his experience, the particularly interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) rightly stressed the need for close liaison between my right hon. Friend and the Ministry of Transport and the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who, in this respect, was echoed by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, spoke of the problem of city centres, which is a problem in which I have particular interest.
As the hon. Member may know, I spoke to the Conference of the Royal Institute of British Architects on that subject. I pointed out that just because there is unified control it does not follow that architecture will be superior. We may get more mediocre architecture; less variety of architecture is generally to be preferred, unless there is a Nash among us. Secondly, it does not make very much sense that the taxpayers


should be asked to help the ratepayers to develop the most profitable part of the ratepayers' own centres.
I wish that I had time to deal with other contributions, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) and that of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington)
.
I now turn to a summary of the action being taken by my right hon. Friend. Basically, it is a continuing service of statistics, projections, advice, research and interpretations for the local planning authorities, and a continuing review of each area's development plan, a review that is renewed on each planning appeal, and on each proposal for ad hoc amendment.
My right hon. Friend continues to be responsible for co-ordinating the county authorities for the urban areas where demand arises. He has initiated and will continue to initiate regional conferences for this purpose. My right hon. Friend will continue to bring pressure to bear towards conversions, in-filling, redevelopment in the towns and cities, and, acceptance in suitable cases of high buildings and higher densities, but my right hon. Friend and the Government will not take panic action; they will not endanger any major planning objectives; they will not allow a return to sporadic and ribbon development which was so expensive in real terms even if the land was cheap. Land for development will continue to be chosen with due regard for communications, work, agriculture, water supply, and all the considerations proper to town and country planning.
The fact is that land is precious and the country is rightly beginning to be aware of it. My Minister will continue to ensure, without imperilling any of the general planning objectives, that a

supply for several years ahead is allocated wherever possible in each area, though not necessarily in each individual community. That is broadly the position now.

With his research staff my right hon. Friend has long guided the planning authorities, and he will go on coordinating and initiating arrangements to satisfy the rising demand not only on a local but also a regional basis. He has in hand much effective work on expanded towns to provide both housing and employment, and, as he said, new towns are not excluded if shown to be necessary and practicable. Urban redevelopment which holds out so much for the future—both of city centres and the redevelopment of out-dated residential areas which has already tentatively begun—lies ahead.

The price of land is no more than a free market judges to be the capacity to pay. Sometimes the market judges wrong, but it judges a great deal better than any Whitehall gentleman. Prices are much higher in the favoured areas than elsewhere. This will ensure the minimum waste of land.

Local authorities have been and will continue to be helped by subsidy or grant to pay the market price for the high cost of housing land and for all land for schools and classified roads.

Today's debate has given further proof that there is no magic wand to wave. We shall go on seeking to predict and to plan for the demands of an even more prosperous future.

Mr. Mitchison: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his well-read speech. I beg to move, That Item Class V, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government) be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 235, Noes 319.

Division No. 139.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Blyton, William
Castle, Mrs. Barbara


Ainsley, William
Boardman, H.
Chapman, Donald


Albu, Austen
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Chetwynd, George


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bowles, Frank
Cliffe, Michael


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boyden, James
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Awbery, Stan
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brockway, A. Fenner
Cronin, John


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Crosland, Anthony


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Darling, George


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'I, S.E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Benson, Sir George
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Blackburn, F.
Callaghan, James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)




Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rhodes, H.


Deer, George
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dempsey, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Diamond, John
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Dodds, Norman
King, Dr. Horace
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Donnelly, Desmond
Lawson, George
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Ledger, Ron
Short, Edward


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Skeffington, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Evans, Albert
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Finch, Harold
McCann, John
Snow, Julian


Fitch, Alan
MacColl, James
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, Eric
McInnes, James
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Foot, Dingle
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Spriggs, Leslie


Forman, J, C.
Mackie, John
Steele, Thomas


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McLeavey, Frank
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stonehouse, John


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stones, William


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Manuel, A. C.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Ginsburg, David
Mapp, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Gooch, E. G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marsh, Richard
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon, Edith


Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Roy
Swain, Thomas


Greenwood, Anthony
Mayhew, Christopher
Swingler, Stephen


Grey, Charles
Mellish, R. J.
Sylvester, George


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Symonds, J.B.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Millan, Bruce
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Grimond, J.
Monslow, Walter
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moody, A. S.
Thornton, Ernest


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley
Morris, John
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hannan, William
Mort, D. L.
Timmons, John


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Moyle, Arthur
Tomney, Frank


Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, Frederick
Wade, Donald


Healey, Denis
Neal, Harold
Wainwright, Edwin


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Warbey, William


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, Tudor


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oram, A. E.
Weitzmann, David


Hilton, A. V.
Oswald, Thomas
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Holman, Percy
Owen, Will
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Houghton, Douglas
Paget, R. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Howell, Charles A.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Whitlock, William


Hoy, James H.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wigg, George


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, John
Willey, Frederick



Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hunter, A. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Popplewell, Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Prentice, R. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Janner, Barnett
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Probert, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Jeger, George
Proctor, W. T.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Zilliacus, K.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rankin, John



Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Redhead, E. C,
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Reid, William
Mr. J. Taylor and


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reynolds, G. W.
 Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Brewis, John


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Berkeley, Humphry
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Allason, James
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Brooman-White, R.


Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Bidgood, John C.
Browne, Percy (Torrington)


Arbuthnot, John
Biggs-Davison, John
Bryan, Paul


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bingham, R. M.
Bullard, Denys


Atkins, Humphrey
Birch, Rt. Hon, Nigel
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Balniel, Lord
Bishop, F. P.
Burden, F. A.


Barber, Anthony
Black, Sir Cyril
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Barlow, Sir John
Bossom, Clive
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)


Barter, John
Bourne-Arton, A.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Batsford, Brian
Box, Donald
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cary, Sir Robert


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Braine, Bernard
Channon, H. P. G.







Chataway, Christopher
Holland, Philip
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hopkins, Alan
Page, Graham


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Partridge, E.


Cole, Norman
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Collard, Richard
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Peel, John


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Percival, Ian


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Peyton, John


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Corfield, F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, I. J.


Coulson, J. M.
Jackson, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
James, David
Pott, Percivall


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, J. Enoch


Critchley, Julian
Jennings, J. C.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Currie, G. B. H.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ramsden, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Peter


Dance, James
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rees, Hugh


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rees-Davies, W. R.


de Ferranti, Basil
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Doughty, Charles
Lambton, Viscount
Rippon, Geoffrey


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, J.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


du Cann, Edward
Leather, E. H. C.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Duthie, Sir William
Leavey, J. A.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Eden, John
Leburn, Gilmour
Roots, William


Elliott, R. W.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lilley, F. J. P.
Russell, Ronald


Errington, Sir Eric
Lindsay, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Sharples, Richard


Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Shaw, M.


Fell, Anthony
Longbottom, Charles
Shepherd, William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.



Loveys, Walter H.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Foster, John
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Smithers, Peter


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Freeth, Denzil
McAdden, Stephen
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
MacArthur, Ian
Speir, Robert


Gammans, Lady
McLaren, Martin
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Gardner, Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Stevens, Geoffrey


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stodart, J. A.


Glover, Sir Douglas
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Goodhew, Victor
Maginnis, John E.
Talbot, John E.


Gough, Frederick
Maitland, Cdr. Sir John
Tapsell, Peter


Gower, Raymond
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Green, Alan
Marlowe, Anthony
Teeling, William


Gresham Cooke, R.
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Temple, John M.


Grimston, Sir Robert
Marshall, Douglas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marten, Neil
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mawby, Ray
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Stratton
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Montgomery, Fergus
Turner, Colin


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Morgan, William
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morrison, John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Gerald
Vane, W, M. F.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Neave, Airey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Hendry, Forbes
Nicholls, Harmar
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Michael
Wakefield, Sir wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nugent, Sir Richard
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wall, Patrick


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ormsby Core, Rt. Hon. D.
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hobson, John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Watts, James


Hocking, Philip N.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Webster, David







Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wise, A. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Whitelaw, William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard



Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Woodhouse, C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. E. Wakefield and


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Woollam, John
Colonel J. H. Harrison.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. Ray Mawby: Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes) rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIR-MAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the International Development Association Order. 1960, a draft of which was laid More this House on 23rd June, be approved.—[Mr. Barber.]

10.10 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: Are we not to have any explanation of the purposes of this Order?

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): Certainly, if that is the wish of the House.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir. F. Soskice) knows, we touched upon this matter during the Second Reading of the International Development Association Bill. The Order is required to enable Her Majesty's Government to confer upon the International Development Association the status, immunities and privileges provided for in the Articles of Agreement of the Association, and thereby to enable the United Kingdom to become a member of the Association.
Before acceding to the Agreement, the Government must deposit a statement that it has taken all necessary steps to enable it to carry out its obligations under the Agreement. The financial operations were provided for in the International Development Association Act, which became law on 2nd June this year. That Act also provided in Section 3 that the provisions of the Agreement relating to the status, immunities and privileges of the Association, its officers and its staff, could be conferred by Order in Council. This Order makes the

necessary provision both for this country and also for those overseas territories for whose foreign relations the Government are responsible and who do not pass their own legislation on the subject.
The result is that, in conjunction with the International Development Association Act, this Order enables Her Majesty's Government to deposit the necessary instrument of accession to the agreement and so to become a member of the Association. The International Development Association is to operate as an affiliate of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and, in the early stages at any rate, will share the same staff. It is, accordingly, to enjoy exactly the same immunities and privileges as were granted by Parliament to the International Bank under the Bretton Woods Agreement Order, 1946.
I should also point out that Article 8 of the Articles of Agreement of the Association set out in the Schedule of this Order is identical with the corresponding Article of that part of the Bretton Woods Agreement which related to the International Bank's immunities and privileges. This Order, therefore, does not break new ground. It applies to the International Development Association the same immunities and the same privileges as Parliament approved in the case of the International Bank.
As the two organisations are to be affiliated and to operate with the same staff, I hope that the House will take the view that this is clearly a sensible arrangement. Therefore, I commend the Order to the House.

10.14 p.m.

Sir F. Soskice: I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation that he has given. It seemed to me that we ought to consider this Order to make sure that it achieves the purposes we have in mind. The Government foreshadowed its necessity during the Second Reading of the International Development Association Bill, which is now on the Statute Book.
The only comment one would always make when one is asked to extend


immunities of one sort or another to the new candidates for immunity is that the list is growing a great deal. I feel that we should not pass Orders of this sort without stopping for a moment to consider the number of persons who have immunities of one sort or another under the law of this country and who, in effect, have privileges over other citizens and can commit wrongs without there being any redress in the courts.
I think that we would all accept that it is a necessity of modern life, with the growing spread of international institutions of one sort or another—good in

themselves—that immunities of this sort have to be multiplied. Having called attention to that, I would not, speaking for myself, invite the House to oppose the passing of this Order, but I thought that it was right to pause for a moment to consider it and to bear in mind the steps marked by this Order in the direction of the enlargement of privileges of individuals over the law.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the International Development Association Order, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.

ROYAL PARKS (SPEED LIMIT)

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move,
That the Hyde Park (First Amendment) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be not made.

Mr. Speaker: I wish for some assistance. I do not know whether the Minister and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) can help me on this, but it appears to me that it might be for the convenience of the House also to discuss the following Motions which deal with Regulations relating to park speed limits:
That the Regent's Park (First Amendment) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be not made.
That the Richmond Park (Second Amendment) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be not made.
That the Greenwich Park (First Amendment) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be not made.
That the Holyrood Park (First Amendment) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be not made.
That the Hampton Court Gardens (Second Amendment) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was, laid before this House on 25th May, be not made.
That the Bushy Park (Second Amendment) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be not made.

Mr. Page: It would certainly be convenient to discuss them together, if my right hon. Friend agrees.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some hon. Members wish to support some of these Regulations and some of us wish to oppose others.

Mr. Speaker: I am not proposing that they should not be severally raised as separate questions, but I think that they might be conveniently discussed together—that is, if time permits. If there is any doubt, we must take them separately.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): Would your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, be that they be voted on separately at the end of the discussion?

Mr. Speaker: If time permits.

Mr. Mellish: Is it proposed, Mr. Speaker, that we should have a general debate on all these Regulations and that the Minister would then get up and say what he thinks about them collectively instead of having a debate on each individual set of Regulations? I am, for example, particularly interested in Greenwich Park, which is local to me. I want a special explanation from the Minister on those Regulations, if I can get it. I therefore hope that in the light of my comments a separate debate may be allowed.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I cast an ill-directed fly. I think the answer is that the Regulations must be dealt with separately.

Mr. Page: I am afraid that I do not understand whether we are dealing with them separately or not.

Mr. Speaker: Separately.

Lord John Hope: From the House's point of view we should get this right. I understand that there will be a series of speeches on each set of Regulations by each hon. Member who catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. My difficulty is one of time if there is to be a complete debate on each set of Regulations, because the forty days in which they have to lie are up tomorrow or the next day. If any of these Regulations were not debated and voted on by 11.30 p.m., it would mean that the period of forty days would be up.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the Minister for raising the point. The difficulty is not his; it is the other way round. I am afraid that I cannot help the House. If hon. Members are not content to discuss the Regulations together, I must proceed strictly by the rule, which is that they should be dealt with one at a time.

Mr. Page: I am sure that, on reconsideration, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) woud see that it would be to the greatest inconvenience of the House to take the seven draft Regulations separately, as the arguments on them are very much the same. I submit respectfully that it would be a waste of time of the House. I ask you to reconsider, Mr. Speaker, whether they can all be discussed together.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot judge this. If hon. Members desire to discuss each of these Prayers separately, that settles it from my point of view. That is their right, and I cannot help the House further. I merely suggested tentatively that they could be discussed together.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: if the Minister were good enough to indicate that in his speech he would deal with the separate merits of each set of Regulations—but in one speech—surely that would meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). Surely if that promise were given, my hon. Friend would be willing for the Regulations to be discussed together.

Lord John Hope: I will certainly do my best to answer questions asked about each and all of these Regulations during the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I am not putting any pressure on him, but I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bermondsey can help the House in this matter.

Mr. Mellish: The trouble is that knowing the Government as well as I do, I have not a trusting faith in them. Some of my hon. Friends are particularly concerned about one set of Regulations and I feel strongly about another. I did not want this brushed aside as one overall debate, and I want it to be clear that these points will be discussed. I gather from what the Minister said that if we have not debated these Regulations by 11.30 p.m. they become law. The last thing I want is to prevent a free debate. Provided that I have an assurance from the Minister that he will answer questions about each set of Regulations, I am willing to co-operate with the House.

Lord John Hope: I will do my best.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the House will take the time factor into account. I cannot help about that. I imagine that it is probably safer for the Minister and the hon. Member for Bermondsey to be allowed a general discussion, and then we will do the best we possibly can in the circumstances.

Mr. Page: I take it that I have, therefore, moved the first Motion and that we shall discuss them all together.

Mr. Speaker: That is so.

Mr. Page: I am obliged.
It is necessary for my right hon. Friend to lay a draft of these Regulations before they can be made. If my Motion is approved these Regulations cannot be made. The purpose of the Regulations is to increase the speed limit in several Royal Parks from the present 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. and the parks affected are indicated in the titles of the draft Regulations. As far as I can ascertain, these draft Regulations have been brought to the House by my right hon. Friend without any prior consultation with the local authorities adjoining the parks or with the road safety societies and the amenity societies who might well be concerned, and indeed in the face of opposition from many such societies.
My right hon. Friend received a letter, dated today, from the National Council of Women deploring the proposed increase in the speed limit in the Royal Parks and setting out a reasoned argument why it should not be made. He also knows of other women's organisations who have protested publicly against these Regulations, including a County Federation of the Townswomen's Guild, the Women's Co-operative Guild and others. I understand that Greenwich Borough Council has protested publicly about the Regulations affecting Greenwich Park and that such societies as the London Society and the Richmond Society have made their opposition known. As my right hon. Friend may imagine, the Ramblers' Association oppose them, as do the Cyclists' Touring Club and, need I add, the Pedestrians Association for Road Safety. Even more important, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has informed my right hon. Friend that it opposes these Regulations, and I will come back to that opposition in a moment, if I may.
Of his own volition—as he is perfectly entitled to do—the Minister has decided to lay these draft Regulations before the House for three reasons. The first reason, which is so often advanced when road safety measures prove inconvenient to the motorist, is that the present limit is ignored and, therefore, the law is brought into disrepute. This is an expression of a dangerous doctrine, that if


a law is broken frequently enough, this House is obliged to repeal it. It is a reason to which I might subscribe were it shown that the law in question served no useful purpose. But I hope to show the House that this 20 m.p.h. limit in the Royal Parks does serve a useful purpose. Furthermore, I think it untrue to say that it is not generally observed in all the parks. It may well be that it is not observed on the East Carriageway of Hyde Park or the outer roads in Regent's Park. But in the other parks mentioned in these draft Regulations it is generally well observed, particularly on the inner roads.
The second argument in favour of increasing the speed limit is a corollary to the first, that if we increase the speed limit it will be observed. What guarantee have we of that? Hon. Members have only to walk a few yards from the Palace of Westminster into Birdcage Walk, where the limit was increased from 20 to 30 m.p.h., to see the speed of the traffic there when it is not slowed down by congestion. Is that the sort of speed which the inhabitants of Richmond or Greenwich want in their parks? It is quite untrue to say that the speed of 20 m.p.h. is generally ignored in all the Royal Parks.
The third argument for increasing the speed limit is, to use the Minister's own words, that "a 20 m.p.h. limit is not in conformity with the movement of motor traffic nowadays and that it is unreasonable to expect drivers to keep down to that speed". I would remind my right hon. Friend that in 1952 his predecessor said, referring to one of the parks: "There are no legal rights of way in Richmond Park, except for pedestrians."
It is true that perhaps over the years the speed of motor traffic has changed and quickened. But although the speed of some people who travel on foot—such as those who beat the four-minute mile—may have increased, the speed of the normal pedestrian has not altered and the pedestrians deserve just as much consideration in this instance as do the motorists. The interests of the pedestrians, their convenience, their amenities and their safety deserve the consideration accorded to them by the 20 m.p.h. speed limit where it is in force.
These roadways through the Royal Parks are carriage drives, they are not

public highways. One might indulge in a nostalgic smile when recollecting that they were first constructed for the leisurely enjoyment of the parks by those who drove through them in horse-drawn carriages. That picture may, perhaps, help to remind my right hon. Friend that when he talks about the movement of motor traffic in these parks, he is changing the whole character of these carriage drives. They are not traffic ways, and I should have thought it his duty to protect them from becoming such and to preserve them for the leisurely enjoyment of the parks.
I exclude, of course, the East Carriageway of Hyde Park. That has been lost to the park for a long time, but there is no need for these Regulations in relation to that roadway. The East Carriageway of Hyde Park is very soon to become part of a public highway, so these Regulations are of no purpose there. If my right hon. Friend thinks that he should have the Regulations for the East Carriageway for a short period until it becomes a public highway, why drag in all the other Royal Parks—Richmond Park, Bushey Park, Greenwich Park, Hampton Court Gardens and the rest?
How can such a course increase the safety of the children and the old people who use these parks, many of which have unfenced roads? Indeed, how will it increase the safety of the deer and the sheep which, to the pleasure and delight of many people, roam on these unfenced fields and roads of the parks?
I would remind my hon. Friend that the Highway Code says that in the best conditions of car, driver and road surface, an increase of speed from 20 miles an hour to 30 miles an hour increases the stopping distance from 40 yards to nearly double that—75 yards. Apart from the danger inherent in the reduction in the time for taking avoiding action, there is another very important consideration.
If one applies exactly the same speed limit to the carriageways in the parks as is applied to the roads in towns one loses the distinctive character of those carriageways. At present, if a motorist drives through the parks at over 20 miles per hour he does so with a certain extra alertness born, perhaps, of guilty knowledge. He realises there is—

Lord John Hope: I think that my hon. Friend, by a slip of the tongue, spoke of the stopping distance at the increased speed rising from 40 yards to 75 yards. I think he meant feet—from 40 feet to 75 feet.

Mr. Page: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that correction. What I said about the distance being nearly doubled is quite correct—but I am greatly obliged for the correction.
I was saying that if the speed limit of 20 miles an hour is broken by a motorist in the parks, he still realises that he is doing so on a road that is of a distinctive character—is something different from a road in the ordinary built-up area—and he does so with some greater precaution.
I say again that these are not public highways, and the motorist should not be invited, by the levelling out of the speed limit, to use the parks as short cuts or convenient traffic routes. The roads there are just as much footpaths as roadways. I would invite any hon. Member to try to walk across Richmnd Park in the wet weather. He will, of course, use the roadway as a footpath.
I would invite him even to try to push a pram across Richmond Park. Let him try to push a pram across the grass—he has to use the roadway.
So it is with all the parents who take their infant children in prams in that way—they have to use the roadway, and it is at present treated as a footpath as well as a roadway—

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I think that my hon. Friend is inadvertently misleading the House in this, because in Richmond Park there are a number of roads that are not open to motorists at all.

Mr. Page: There are also the number of roads affected by these Regulations that are open to motorists and have no pavements on which the pedestrian can walk. There is, in fact, a ditch beside them, so that it is quite impossible for the parent with a pram get on the grass and off the road. I use Richmond Park as an example, but the same thing applies to a number of the other Royal Parks.
Because these roadways are not public highways, the pedestrian crossing Regulations do not apply there. There can

be no such thing in law as a pedestrian crossing in a Royal Park, and in this connection I come back to what I mentioned a little earlier—the objection by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to this increase in the speed limit.
I take the liberty of quoting from a letter which the Society has written to my right hon. Friend and of which, as you, Mr. Speaker, say on occasions, for greater accuracy I have obtained a copy. I wish to quote it in full if the House will bear with me. It states:
My Society understands that Mr. Graham Page is due to raise objections to the draft regulations now before Parliament under which it is proposed to raise the speed limits in the Royal Parks from 20 to 30 m.p.h.
At its meeting this afternoon—
that was, on 15th July—
the National Executive Committee of my Society approved a recommendation of the National Road Safety Committee laying down my Society's attitude to these regulations in the following terms:

(a) RoSPA considers that, owing to their special circumstances, there is a case for raising the speed limit in Hyde Park and Regent's Park to a strictly enforced 30 m.p.h. but not until adequate provision has been made for pedestrians to be able to cross the roads concerned in safety.
(b) As regards the other Royal Parks, RoSPA is not favourably disposed towards any raising of the speed limit and certainly not without arrangements being made, both for adequate enforcement and for the safe crossing by pedestrians of the roads concerned.
In effect, this means that my Society is against the raising of any of the speed limits in the Royal Parks in advance of adequate provision being made for pedestrians, and, of course, for proper enforcement of the limit.
Will my right hon. Friend see that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport applies the pedestrian crossing Regulations to the Royal Parks if these Regulations are passed? If not, why not? Is there any justification, if the speed limit goes up to 30 m.p.h., for continuing to exclude the pedestrian crossing Regulations from the Royal Parks?
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press the House to accept these draft Regulations tonight. I make this earnest plea to him. These Regulations are laid in draft. The whole purpose of this procedure is that the draft should lie on the Table of the House so that the Minister may obtain consideration of it by the House and the feeling of the House upon it. If he does not press


these draft Regulations tonight, it will not be like withdrawing regulations which have been made. It will not be a reversal of Government policy. I ask my right hon. Friend to take back these draft Regulations without letting the House divide on them. Some hon. Members may consider that in the Regulations my right hon. Friend has a good idea, but nobody would suggest that the Regulations are necessary and many seriously oppose them.
We have been going along nicely without these Regulations. Why upset so many people by proposing them? Why, in heaven's name, create more dangers on the road now when my right hon. Friend's colleagues are trying so desperately hard to reduce those dangers?

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: One of the intriguing things about this debate is that the feeling on either side of the House is equally strong. Even more important is that the feeling in most of the districts to which the Regulations apply is strong among people of all shades of political opinion. Obviously, there is a reason for this.
There has been a great deal of talk about the terrible toll which is taken on our roads year in, year out. We have had debates about the numbers of people who are killed and the numbers of children who are killed. One of the strongest points which influences most people is the conviction that if these Regulations come into force, they will inevitably involve, at some time, an accident to a child or adult which would not: otherwise take place.
Why the Minister is suddenly seized with this spurt of reforming zeal, why he departs from his normal placidness in this way without any encouragement from anyone, is difficult to understand.
I am opposed to all these Regulations. Perhaps I should say with the exception of the Scottish one, for I have not permission to speak on that; but I am really opposed to them all on principle because they are all equally pointless.
I speak about the Greenwich Park not only because I represent the constituency but because I have lived in the area and used the park as a child and

my child plays in it now. The park is probably one of the largest in South-East London. It is very attractive. From the General Wolfe statue there is a unique view of the Queen's House and the Royal Naval College, built by Wren, backed by London's dockland. It is a fascinating and attractive place. Children come from all over south-east London to play there. In London in general there is not an abundance of places where children can play in safety. There are not many places where people can go for pleasant walks. The Royal Parks are among the few places where such people can go and where parents can send their children during the school holidays secure in the knowledge, so far, that they are safer there than probably anywhere else. The people in the London area who have gardens usually have very small ones.
Another factor about the park is its position. At the top is the A2, the main London—Dover road. At the bottom of it and running parallel with it is the Woolwich road which connects with Blackwall Tunnel. To encourage motorists to take a short cut from the London—Dover road through to the Blackwall Tunnel is an example of inefficiency seldom seen even on the part of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—with no real purpose behind it.
It has been said that the present law is not observed. I suppose that is something which can be established as a matter of fact or not, but surely it is the duty of legislators to decide legislation upon its merits and, if it is not observed, to turn their attention to enforcing it and not to changing the law. It is a very peculiar doctrine which says that if murder continues to be committed, murder then becomes a legal activity. This seems to me to be the same sort of peculiar argument.
It is said in some quarters that it is difficult to maintain a speed of 20 m.p.h. While I feel a great deal of sympathy with pedestrians, I am a driver. I drive a fairly powerful 2½ litre six-cylinder car, but I find no difficulty in keeping to 20 m.p.h. through Greenwich Park, and I see no reason why anybody else should not drive at a reasonable speed.
There is another factor emerging from this. If the Minister is right in feeling that the speed limit of 20 m.p.h. is not


observed, I think it automatically follows that a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. will not be observed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may shake their heads, but if they really believe that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit outside the Royal Parks is observed they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Very few hon. Members on either side of the House—I include myself—can say that they have never drifted away from the 30 m.p.h. speed limit in a 30 m.p.h. limit area.

Mr. James Dempsey: Shame.

Mr. Marsh: I agree that it is a shame. But there are some areas in which the speed limits enforced are lower than the average, and if we can keep a few such areas as oases in the huge areas of exhaust fumes and interminable traffic jams into which London is developing, surely that is a justifiable aim for any person.
These parks may be controlled by the Minister—they may be Government parks or Royal Parks—but they belong very much to the people of those areas. We are the people who use them, and it is our children who play in them.
If democracy means anything, on an issue of this type, which does not affect Whitehall half as much as it does Greenwich, there should have been some consultation with local authorities. Local newspapers came out strongly against the change, and every organisation which could conceivably be involved in the move has opposed the right hon. Gentleman's intentions. There seems to be no virtue or merit in the proposal.
As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, if the practice of laying draft Regulations before the House means anything, and if, as seems likely, the opinion of the hon. Members is overwhelmingly against the draft Regulations, and as there is no support from local people, the right hon. Gentleman should have second thoughts, change his mind and allow the present Regulations to remain unchanged.
There are very few places left where the pedestrian reigns supreme, and very few places where children can play all day long on a wide expanse of land, where they can play cowboys and do all the other amusing things that

children do in safety. If those places are taken from them, we shall have children playing on the sides of roads where the speed limit is 30 m.p.h. and where there is no safety.
We cannot rely on children to remember to be careful when crossing these roads when there are many acres of attractions on one side, as there are in Greenwich, with flower gardens on the other. As they always do, children will run backwards and forwards, sublimely oblivious of the traffic up and down the roads.
There are plenty of roads in the area which can be used by a motorist in a hurry. The main reason why motorists do not now use Greenwich Park as an attractive short cut from A 2 to the Blackwall Tunnel is that there is a 20 m.p.h. speed limit. If that limit is removed, the road through Greenwich Park will become a main road joining two main roads and the average speed through the park will be 35 m.p.h. or 37 m.p.h. Even if it is not and the motorist strictly observes the 30 m.p.h. limit, an increase of the limit from 20 to 30 m.p.h. doubles the chances against the pedestrian and there is no reason why the change should be made at this stage without any support from local people.
We are now approaching the school holidays. I speak strongly about this subject because, as I have said, I played in this park when I was a child and my own child plays there now and I know what it is like. There are few other places where the children can go. If the Minister can produce evidence of a demand for these draft Regulations, he might be able to convince hon. Members on both sides of the House that they should support him, but if he cannot do so, then he has no right to fly in the face of local opinion.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Royle: I wish to speak on the draft Regulations relating to my constituency and to oppose my right hon. Friend's proposals concerning Richmond Park, although for reasons quite different from those given by hon. Members who have already spoken in this debate.
I know that my right hon. Friend is a lover of Richmond Park and travels through it regularly and has the park's


interests very much at heart. Richmond Park itself has had a connection with the House of Commons for many centuries. Sir Robert Walpole used to keep a pack of beagles in the park and, from that time, because he wanted to hunt at weekends, the House of Commons has always been closed on Saturday mornings.
King George II was not a very good shot, but he enjoyed his sport. He filled Richmond Park with wild turkeys and brought in a pack of dogs to chase them up trees. He then shot the turkeys while they were sitting on the branches. This park is a great heritage. It is used not only by local people but by the great mass of Londoners.
I think I can produce exceptional reasons why Richmond Park should be excluded from these Regulations. To begin with, it is the largest park near London. It consists of 2,358 acres of enclosed land. It is larger than Hyde Park, Regent's Park, Greenwich Park, Holy-rood Park and Hampton Court Gardens added together—all of which are dealt with in these Regulations. Indeed, for the record, it is larger than Greenwich Park, Battersea Park, Finsbury Park, West Ham Park, Victoria Park, Southwark Park, Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park, Regent's Park, Green Park and St. James's Park added together. It is the largest park near Central London. It is only 6 miles from Hyde Park Corner.
It is a noble inheritance and is crossed by what are virtually country lanes. It is a rural area to which Londoners can go at weekends and to which the residents of Richmond. Twickenham, Wimbledon and Kingston can go in the afternoon or evening.
If the speed limit on these park roads is increased from 20 to 30 m.p.h., it will bring them into line with the public highways, and I am opposing these Regulations on this one issue alone.

Mr. Marsh: Does the hon. Gentleman's argument mean that he is not in favour of the Regulations in respect of Richmond Park but that he supports the other Regulations?

Mr. Royle: That is not my argument. In fact, I do not oppose the other Regulations. I am opposing only the Richmond Park Regulations.
If the speed limit were increased from 20 to 30 m.p.h., it would bring the roads

in Richmond Park, which are very narrow, into line with the public highway. Unlike the other parks—and I will not deal with the park mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) because it is not in my constituency—Richmond Park roads do not have the surface or the width, or the road signs, which one finds in Regent's Park, Hyde Park, St. James's Park and many other parks, all of which are necessary for safety on a public highway. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said, Regent's Park and Hyde Park have wide tarmacadam roads with pavements, and "Keep Left" signs, and these roads can take heavy traffic quite safely. If cars are to travel at 30 m.p.h. along the narrow roads in Richmond Park, pressure must be put on the Minister of Works—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby started to bring that pressure to bear in his speech tonight—to maintain the roads in the park on the same basis as one maintains the roads on the public highway. The corners would have to be widened, the surfaces improved; there would have to be more "Keep Left" signs and white lines down the middle of the road; there would have to be pedestrian crossings—

Mr. Norman Cole: And more policemen.

Mr. Royle: And more policemen, as my hon. Friend says, as well as traffic lights and all the rest of the paraphernalia which is necessary for safety on the public highway.
This would completely and utterly ruin Richmond Park. It would become like Wimbledon Common or Putney Common, with cars speeding along the roads. Overnight, one would lose the character of this great rural park so near the centre of London.
I ask the Minister how he will be able to resist this pressure. I know that he wishes to avoid spoiling this park. What about his successor? How will he avoid the pressure which will be put upon him to bring these roads up to the same level of maintenance as the public highway? I ask him to exclude Richmond Park from these Regulations as being a quite different case from the other parks. If he will not do that, I ask him to delay the operation of these


Regulations in order to see how effective the new enforcement orders which he put to work last week in the park are proving. I noticed that during the last week, when Land Rovers with "Park Patrol" marked on them and motor- cycle police have operated in the park, traffic suddenly began to go steadily at 20 m.p.h. Will not my right hon. Friend consider delaying the operation of these Regulations until he sees how the new enforcement arrangements work out?
If neither idea appeals to him, rather than submit to pressure to bring the roads in Richmond Park up to the same level of maintenance and to put up the same road signs as appear on the public highway, will he assure the House that he or his successor will reintroduce the former speed limit of 20 m.p.h.? I recognise the urgency of speeding the traffic flow, and I realise that my right hon. Friend has a deep concern for safe- guarding the amenities of Richmond Park, but I say that our open spaces have been encroached on sufficiently already. Therefore, I beg him not to bring these Regulations into force.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I wish again to say a word about the intention to increase the speed limit in Holyrood Park. I have already made my case at considerable length in a previous debate, and I shall now confine myself to one or two matters Which have come up since then. First, since the last debate a census of opinion within the park and around it has been taken. About 7,000 householders and motorists have been stopped and asked what they feel about this. The census was taken by very responsible persons—councillors in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) and magistrates—and its result is exceedingly interesting.
Out of the 7,000 people questioned, only 7·5 per cent. were in favour of this increase from 20 to 30 m.p.h. In the case of the motorists—the people on whose behalf the right hon. Gentleman is supposed to be acting—only 25 per cent. wished to see an increase in the speed limit. In view of the very wide spread opposition on the part of residents and those whose children will be exposed to greater danger as a result of

this change, can the right hon. Gentleman say that he is acting correctly in persisting in his proposal?
I ask him to consider the excuse which he put forward on the last occasion we debated this matter. He said:
All I am doing is to tidy up an untidy situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1960; Vol. 625, c. 1349.]
This is not a built-up area. Why not remove the limit altogether? Then the situation would be still tidier. That argument is absurd.
Further, he said that the Edinburgh Accident Prevention Council had supported him in this proposal. I hope that he will apologise for having misled the House and myself—because that council has come out against the proposal. Therefore, the only support adduced in the last debate has disappeared. Not a soul in Edinburgh has asked for this. I know of no organisation, either amongst the public or from the town council, which has endorsed this action by the Minister.
I said that I would be brief. Other hon. Members want to speak. In view of the almost complete lack of support in Edinburgh for this change, I ask the Minister to reconsider this. I appeal to him to show that he is big enough to accept the democratic wishes of the citizens of Edinburgh. It is worth while doing that. Why should we have something imposed on us because somebody in Whitehall or elsewhere thinks that it is a good thing to tidy this up? It is better, fairer and more in accordance with the traditions of this House and of the country to accept the very well expressed opinions of the citizens of Edinburgh and leave this matter alone until there is at least a demand for it.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that there is undoubtedly opposition to this proposal in the City of Edinburgh. I admitted that in the last debate. What is doubtful is how much opposition there is.

Mr. Willis: Seventy-five per cent.

Mr. Stodart: I agree with the figures which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has given. The figures are spectacular. In view of the substantial


opposition to this proposition, I am surprised that I have had not one letter from a constituent in support of this move. That may not be unreasonable, because I admit that my constituency in Edinburgh is probably the furthest from the Park. But if feeling is running as high as the hon. Gentleman made out, it is surely likely that there would have been at least some correspondence in the Edinburgh newspapers.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I happen to be one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and, though I did not write to him, may I now register my objection?

Mr. Thomas Oswald: I add mine also.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: May I register mine too?

Mr. Stodart: It is already obvious that the hon. Gentlemen are incapable of putting their protests on paper. The fact remains that since this controversy began six weeks ago there have been only three letters in the Edinburgh newspapers.

Mr. Willis: All against.

Mr. Stodart: Yes, I agree that they were all against, but it does not show signs of tremendous agitation.
The objections to the proposal are twofold. One letter in the Edinburgh Press sums up the objection in this way:
It is an undisputed fact that at present many motorists avoid the Park as a through road if at all possible, simply because of the restricted speed limit".
I am not sure that that is an undisputed fact. I find it very hard to believe that anyone motoring either from Duddingston to Newington or from Jock's Lodge to Newington deliberately avoids the Park, When it is obviously the shortest way between those points, merely because there is a speed limit in the Park. The second objection is that, if the Regulations go through, the speed will rise from 20 miles an hour plus to 30 miles an hour plus.
At the meeting of protest against the Regulations, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred, one magistrate said, or is reported to have said:
Holyrood Park will become a testing ground for cars—practically another Le Mans

race track—if the speed limit is raised above the present 20 miles per hour.
That is colourful language, if somewhat extravagant. I prefer the language of the Secretary of the Scottish Accident Prevention Council. It has been said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that the Edinburgh Accident Prevention Council is against the proposal by ten to nine—

Mr. Willis: After the chairman had already committed himself to approval to someone in the Department of the right hon. Gentleman. Then the Council rejected its chairman's view.

Mr. Stodart: The fact remains that the secretary of the Scottish Accident Prevention Council is reported to have said that his Council supported the proposal because it was realistic. I put to the House the opinion as expressed in one of the leading Edinburgh newspapers on 22nd June:
There is no reason why the raising of the speed limit in Holyrood Park should not be given a thorough trial. The 20 m.p.h. limit is quite unrealistic these days. In any case, it is largely ignored. Provided the new ruling is strictly enforced, there is no cause to believe that it will bring any greater danger. But strict enforcement is the hub of the matter.

Mr. Marsh: Will the hon. Member explain why it is easier to enforce a 30 miles an hour speed limit than a 20 miles an hour limit?

Mr. Stodart: What I do not understand is why it is taken for granted that on roads which are narrow and twisting it automatically follows that people will drive at 40 miles an hour.

Mr. Willis: That does not answer the question.

11.7 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: In face of the strength of opinion that has been expressed on both sides of the House, I suggest to the Minister in all seriousness that these Regulations ought not to be rushed through tonight.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw them because, clearly, this is not a party matter. It cuts across the ordinary party barriers. I also appeal to him to withdraw all the Regulations because, although hon. Members have dealt with different local aspects, it has clearly emerged from this unhappily


brief debate that general principles underly all the arguments and they affect all the areas concerned. The main principle underlying them is that what we are discussing tonight is not a transport question but a parks question. What we ought to be considering is the needs of our parks and not a mere sideline of the general urban traffic problem.
If the Government or the right hon. Gentleman want more lanes for urban traffic, let them have the courage to say so and then let us fight out where they should be. Surely it is quite wrong to errode the peace and safety of our parks as a sideline of any Minister's abortive attempts to solve the urban traffic problem. There have been suggestions, particularly by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), that somehow when there is a 30 miles an hour speed limit it will be more enforceable, as though there was something natural and instinctive about a 30 miles an hour limit. I point out to the Minister that in certain built-up areas the 30 miles an hour limit is already being relaxed to 40 miles an hour.
If we give way on this in our parks, where there are some of the most clear and tempting run throughs for traffic, we shall be opening the gateway to further serious danger to safety in the parks, My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) told me just before the debate began that when he was Minister of Works he had this request put to him and he turned it down because he said categorically that, in his view, parks ought to be parks, with the needs of children and those who look after them, and of the elderly, paramount within them—in other words, the needs of those who want to enjoy peace and quiet. He said that he had never forgotten the days when, as a child, he had to walk all the way from Blackfriars Road to Green Park pushing a perambulater with one hand and dragging a toddler along with the other before they could find a blade of grass where they could play in safety. That was my right hon. Friend's view when he resisted this encroachment.
What has happened since he was Minister of Works? More traffic, more speed and more impatience. Surely there is even more need for the oasis of peace of our parks. In all sincerity I beg the

Minister to withdraw the Regulations and to think again.

11.12 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): In the debate on this subject initiated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) on the Adjournment on 28th June, I said, as he reminded the House, that I was engaged in a tidying up operation, and also that in my submission 30 m.p.h. was a very slow speed and a very safe speed and 20 m.p.h. was an unreasonably slow speed. I said that I believed it to be wrong to connive at a statutory obligation which cannot reasonably be carried out.

Hon. Members: Why?

Lord John Hope: Because it is unreasonably slow.

Mr. Ross: Come down to Ayr.

Lord John Hope: It is not a question of coming down to Ayr. It is a question of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) coming down to earth.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Member aware that for several miles on Ayr promenade the speed limit is 8 m.p.h. and that it is enforced? It is not a question of coming down to earth. Let him come to Ayr.

Lord John Hope: It is not for me to comment on the decisions of other authorities in matters which have nothing to do with me. I am trying to tell the House the premises on which I considered this matter very carefully indeed. Those were my premises the other night and they are the premises which influence me this evening.
That explains why I did not feel it right to consult local authorities or societies interested in this matter. I have been criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and others, but I felt that this was a matter of universally admitted contempt of the law, in terms of the 20 m.p.h. limit, in which I had to bear my own responsibility and to stand up to it. That point has nothing whatever to do with any local authority. It is a decision on which I, as Minister, can make up my mind, and I thought that I alone should make up my mind on that. It is my responsibility and that of nobody else. I am perfectly prepared to stand up to it on that basis.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I take it that if the limit is raised to 30 m.p.h. and if there, are a number of deaths of young children and old people, the Minister will accept that as his responsibility.

Lord John Hope: Obviously I will accept as my responsibility anything which can be shown to be the result of anything I have done. I hope very much that it would not be in the hon. Lady's mind—and I am sure it would not—to make any sort of capital by implying that the Minister was responsible for something for which, in the event, he would not be sure that he was responsible. It does not in the least follow that if there were—and God forbid that there should be—an accident in the park at some future date, it would be due to this increase in the speed limit. It would depend entirely on what was the cause of the accident. It is a pity, if I may say so, that the hon. Lady, who is not generally unfair in these matters, should have made this intervention now. I will leave it at that.

Miss Herbison: The Minister must realise that the kind of humanity—

Lord John Hope: I cannot give way. During the debate the other night I outlined the history of the 20 miles per hour speed limit. I will not weary hon. Members by repeating it. Most hon. Members must know it as well as I do. It goes back to the beginning of the century and to the days of the horse. There is nothing sacred about it. The simple position is that the decision has gradually been made to increase it so as to conform with the speed outside the parks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That has been what has happened until this last step was taken in St. James's and Green Parks.

Sir Alexander Spearman: If the speed limit is raised, will it then be any easier to enforce it than it has been to enforce the 30 m.p.h. limit? I ask that because time and time again in Birdcage Walk, cars have gone past me at 40 or 50 m.p.h.

Lord John Hope: If my hon. Friend will listen to what I have to say, I think he will be satisfied. There is plenty of evidence to show that what he believes is not happening. [Interruption.] No, and I do say to the House

that that is perfectly true. What I want hon. Members to realise is that, since the limit was raised to 30 m.p.h. in St. James's Park and Green Park, experience has shown that this has not produced any significant increase in actual speed or in the accident rate.

Mr. Dempsey: What does "significant" mean?

Lord John Hope: "Significant" means any increase which would have shown either of those things.
I should like now to tell the House of an extremely interesting and relevant finding commented upon in the Report by the Departmental Committee on Road Safety on the experimental introduction of the 40 m.p.h. limit in the London area. This Report was commenting on a finding of the relevant Road Research Committee itself, and in paragraph 7 we read,
We note that the reports produced by the Road Research Laboratory show that, on those lengths of road which were previously unrestricted, the imposition of the forty miles an hour limit has in general resulted in a decrease in vehicle speeds and there have been fewer accidents. With regard to those lengths which were previously subject to the thirty miles per hour limit, the raising of the limit has resulted in no appreciable change in speeds while the accident rates remain substantially the same. We consider that the higher limit on these carefully selected roads has achieved the purpose of removing an unjustifiably low speed limit and has consequently encouraged a proper standard of enforcement.
I have no doubt at all that exactly the same will apply between the 20 and the 30 m.p.h. limit as was the case between the 30 and the 40 m.p.h. limit.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister now advancing an argument for raising the speed limit in the parks to 40 miles an hour?

Lord John Hope: No. I do not think that the hon. Lady has followed what I was saying. If she has, she will see exactly the lesson I am trying to point. I think that her hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) will bear me out because, in an extremely interesting speech on 14th July, he said:
It is a curious thing"—
he was talking about experiments in the United States:
but traffic engineers who have made a detailed study of this matter are coming more


and more to the conclusion that there is a speed limit which is self-policing. I do not mean by this that the motorist should decide the speed at which he should travel and the Government should fall in by obligingly giving him the speed which he wants, but the evidence suggests that there is a realistic and effective speed limit. It will greatly help the enforcement of our laws if, without prejudice to safety, it is possible to bring the speed laid down by law into line with that realistic level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1960; Vol. 626, c. 1764–5.]

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Since the Minister has quoted a speech made about a totally different subject, which was major motorways leading out of our cities, I must point out that that speech did not make any reference whatever to parks. That raises an entirely different issue. I strongly object to a quotation of this kind, which dealt with our major motorways, leading into and out of our cities, being used, quite wrongly, in connection with the problem of our public parks.

Lord John Hope: The House can judge perfectly well that the psychological side of this—and that, of course, is what it very largely comes to—is precisely the same whether the road is inside a park or outside it—

Mr. Page: I do not think that the House can judge that when my right hon. Friend does not report fully that the increase from 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h. resulted in an increase in the percentage of serious and fatal accidents. There was an increase in accident proportions, and where the speed limit was not enforced in Hyde Park there were three deaths last year and 202 accidents.

Lord John Hope: My hon. Friend has got it quite wrong. As he knows, there was not an increase in the rate of accidents.
The question of the Holyrood poll, mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). This is not a simple question. It is complex. I do not think that any hon. Member on that side of the House, any more than on this, would deny that, and I was not in the least surprised that a snap question asked in the way it was asked should have been answered as it was—"Do you want the speed limit raised in Holyrood or not?" If that kind of poll is to have any value

at all, it has to include such a question as: "Do you believe that the law ought to continue to be held in contempt or not?" Because that is what is happening with regard to the 20 m.p.h. speed limit—

Mr. William Ross: What about the Accident Prevention Council?

Lord John Hope: That has already been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, and I do not want to repeat what he has said. I quoted the remark of the chairman of the Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, I did—to the effect that it was a sensible thing that I was doing. That was reported as being the Edinburgh Prevention Council's opinion; it was, in fact, the chairman at that time who said it—

Mr. Willis: Mr. Willis rose—

Lord John Hope: No, I cannot give way. I quoted it as a perfectly bona fide Report, but it was the chairman's statement that was reported. In fact, the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West were perfectly correct, although they were not quoted at the time in the Press. The Council debated this, and voted ten votes against nine with, I imagine, the chairman abstaining. As I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East in that debate, I did not claim very much for my case on that opinion of the Accident Prevention Council, and the hon. Member nodded acquiescence of my observation. Neither of us was trying to score points in terms of what either body felt about the matter.
I was about to speak concerning children. I know that this is something that one cannot escape and which must be considered. It has been said to me in certain quarters that what is being done in these parks by raising the speed limit from 20 to 30 m.p.h. is making it dangerous for children who hitherto have played all over the roads. That is what it comes to.

Mr. Willis: No.

Lord John Hope: That is precisely what the point has been. I suggest to the House that it is not doing much of a service to children if they are encouraged—I do not for one moment believe that they have been—

Mr. Marsh: Utter nonsense.

Lord John Hope: —not to take their road discipline seriously in a park simply because the traffic limit is 20 m.p.h. It is extremely dangerous if children have been encouraged to ignore traffic on the roads through the parks, and I do not for one moment believe that they have been so encouraged?

Mr. Mellish: Why raise the limit?

Lord John Hope: As for the increase from 20 to 30 m.p.h., I have shown what the Report has said about one speed being raised to another, and precisely the same psychological result will be the effect of the change from 20 to 30 m.p.h. in the parks. There is no reason whatever why it should not be so.

Mr. Oswald: Will the Minister tell the House what the accident figures have been in the precincts of Holyrood Park over the past three years?

Lord John Hope: I do not have the figures with me, but they are infinitesimal, as the hon. Member knows. I will let him have them later. It is a very good rate indeed.

Mr. Mellish: Why spoil it?

Lord John Hope: There is no question of spoiling it in Holyrood, Greenwich or Richmond Park, or anywhere else. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) felt so strongly about Richmond Park, and I am grateful that the Council decided not to vote against the limit. I know quite well that—

Mr. A. Royle: Mr. A. Royle rose—

Lord John Hope: I am sorry, I must finish—there is sincere feeling about this and against it in certain parts.
It would not be very courageous not to face now the established and admitted fact that the law is being widely brought

into contempt where the 20 m.p.h. limit prevails. That being said, however, I believe it to be my duty to watch the situation—

Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman has no men.

Lord John Hope: I have got men to do it with. I have park wardens to watch the situation and they can do it. We shall get the co-operation of the police 100 per cent. I regard it as my duty, and the duty of any successor of mine, to watch the situation in the light of this new speed limit. Certainly, if I thought that all previous experience will be completely reversed and that the amenities of the parks will suffer as a result of this speed limit now being the very slow one of 30 m.p.h., I would be prepared, obviously, to face the situation, and so would any Minister in my place. But that, I repeat, is no excuse whatever for not facing an unhealthy situation that ought to be put right when we can do so.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: In the minute that remains, I should like to say this to the Minister. To the best of my knowledge, in the parks which he did not deal with—Greenwich, for example—the records show that not a single accident has taken place there in the last three years. There is at present a speed limit of 20 m.p.h. The Minister says that, for the benefit of motorists, it is necessary to increase it to 30 m.p.h. Frankly, I do not believe that motorists want this speed limit raised. I do not believe that there has been a demand for it. I believe that motorists going through the parks respect the speed limit to a large extent—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 95A (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (procedure)):—

The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 167.

Division No. 140.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Awbery, Stan
Foot, Dingle
King, Dr. Horace


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'I, S.E.)
Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Lawson, George


Blyton, William
Galpern, Sir Myer
Loughlin, Charles


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, A. C.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Greenwood, Anthony
Marsh, Richard


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mellish, R. J.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mendelson, J. J.


Cliffe, Michael
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Millan, Bruce


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howell, Charles A.
Morris, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oram, A. E.


Delargy, Hugh
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Oswald, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Page, Graham




Reynolds, G. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Boss, William
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)



Short, Edward
Wainwright, Edwin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeffington, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. Willis and Mr. Hoy.


Small, William
Wilkins, W. A.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Peel, John


Allason, James
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Arbuthnot, John
Hay, John
Pitman, I, J.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pitt, Miss Edith


Barlow, Sir John
Hendry, Forbes
Pott, Percivall


Barter, John
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Batsford, Brian
Hocking, Philip N.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Berkeley, Humphry
Holland, Philip
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bidgood, John C.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Bees, Hugh


Bingham, R. M.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bishop, F. P.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bossom, Clive
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Bourne-Arton, A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Roots, William


Box, Donald
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Jackson, John
Russell, Ronald


Brewis, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brooman-White, R.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Sharples, Richard


Bullard, Denys
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shaw, M.


Bullus, Wing Commander Erie
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Kershaw, Anthony
Smithers, Peter


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kirk, Peter
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Chataway, Christopher
Langford-Holt, J.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, J. A.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. Alan
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Litchfield, Capt. John
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Longbottom, Charles
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Cordle, John
Longden, Gilbert
Tapsell, Peter


Coulson, J. M.
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
MacArthur, Ian
Teeling, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Mackie, John
Temple, John M.


Cunningham, Knox
McLaren, Martin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Currie, G. B. H.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Dalkeith, Earl of
McMaster, Stanley R.
Turner, Colin


Dance, James
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maginnis, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. R-


Deedes, W. F.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Drayson, G. B.
Marten, Neil
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


du Cann, Edward
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Emery, Peter
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)



Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Freeth, Denzil
Mills, Stratton
Watts, James


Gammans, Lady
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gardner, Edward
Morgan, William
Whitelaw, William


Gibson-watt, David
Nabarro, Gerald
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Nicholls, Harmar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Noble, Michael
Woodhouse, C. M.


Goodhew, Victor
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Worsley, Marcus


Green, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, West)



Gresham Cooke, R.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. Bryan and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

Colonel J. H. Harrison (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): Colonel J. H. Harrison (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household) rose—

Mr. Benn: On a point of order. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that at the beginning of our debate we discussed whether we could discuss the Motions separately and divide on them severally. The question now arises whether it is possible after 11.30 p.m. to have further Divisions. Standing Order 95A says:
No proceedings on a motion to which this order applies shall be entered upon at or after half-past eleven o'clock.

It is clear, therefore, that my hon. Friends who were speaking to Scottish questions had, in fact, by the agreement and consent of the House, entered into proceedings on those Regulations, otherwise they would clearly have been out of order in speaking to Scottish affairs on the Hyde Park Regulation.
If you felt able to rule, Mr. Speaker, it would be for the great convenience of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House if we could proceed to a Division now


against such other Regulations as have been laid as have been the subject of objections raised by hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the difficulty of the hon. Member. It was for that reason that, when I cast forth the suggestion that for the convenience of the House it might suit to discuss the Regulations together, although it would be necessary to put them separately, I added on more than one occasion "if there be time". The fact is that I am governed by the Standing Order, which was designed exactly to prevent proceedings on a Prayer going on beyond 11.30 unless the Chair thought it was within the proviso. I do not think that that is so with this case.
I take the view that I am completely governed by the Standing Order, the sole Question proposed to the House being the Motion relating to the first set of Regulations. The sole Question technically under discussion at 11.30 p.m. was the first Motion. I regret the need so to rule, but I do not feel any doubt about it.

Mr. Benn: The House is in some difficulty here. Having approached these five sets of Regulations at 10.15 p.m., had we occupied the whole of the time in dividing on the five sets of Regulations there would have been no time for any debate on any of them.

Mr. Speaker: That may be so. I am sure the hon. Member will forgive me for reminding him that this is all coming out of the Adjournment time. I have ruled and it would be fairer to the hon. Member concerned with the Adjournment if the House took other steps to deal with my Ruling if it feels it to be wrong. I ask the House to accept my Ruling in the interests of the further proceedings of the House.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The Adjournment debate is extremely important, and I have the greatest interest in it. I am anxious not to limit it, but this is the most important point of order that has been raised in the history of Parliament.
We have seven contested sets of Regulations. We have had a vote on the only Regulations against which there was very little criticism. We agreed that they would all be discussed together so that the proceedings could

start at 10.15 p.m. and still be going on at 11.30 p.m. and so that we could have a vote. Some hon. Members regarded this as a very definite issue of great constituency importance.
When I said that this was the most important issue, I was really over-expressing myself, but the importance of it is that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) realised the difficulties and spoke for four minutes, and the Minister spoke for nineteen minutes, and thus ensured, apparently, that he would not suffer an adverse vote on issues that had been fully discussed.
I suggest, with respect, and I hope that I am saying it with due respect to the Chair, that a consideration of the words of the Standing Order about proceedings having commenced really means that once my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) gave way and said that we consented to them all being discussed together we were entitled to a vote on each set of Regulations.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged. I considered this problem for a long time. Even indeed when I was inviting the views of the House about what it wanted to do I had it in mind and tried to emphasise the dilemma in which hon. Members would put themselves one way or the other.
I am afraid that I cannot change my Ruling, because I believe it to be right. I hope that the House will either take it or deal with me in some other way, because I cannot repent from it now that I believe it to be right.

Mr. Benn: As regards the question whether we are on the Adjournment, with respect, as soon as I saw one of the Whips rise I raised a point of order before you, Mr. Speaker, had time to put the Question.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is right about that. I am not confident whether the Motion was made or not, because I do not know, but I hope it does not affect the matter in this sense. Without any kind of discourtesy, I do not wish to encourage the hon. Member. I do not feel that he will persuade me tonight that that was wrong, because I am convinced that the Ruling is right, and I would seek to be dealt with in some other way and not be argued with


now. I do not think even the hon. Member's eloquence will persuade me to the contrary.

Mrs. Castle: Would it be outwith your Ruling, Mr. Speaker—in view of the fact that hon. Members who feel strongly about the subsequent Regulations are now denied the chance to register their votes upon them—to appeal to the Minister, even at this late hour, to withdraw the Regulations? This is surely the only way in which he can get round the difficulty of depriving hon. Members of their democratic right to vote upon them. If he withdraws them he can table them again—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady must not tax my patience too far. What persuasion can be exercised in this matter is not a question for the Chair.

Mr. George Lawson: Is it the case that the subsequent Regulations, on this basis, are finally dealt with, or that—there being a clear recognition of the fact that the matter is not finished so far as the House is concerned—on a subsequent occasion these matters may be raised, and you may put these further Regulations before the House for its voting, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is that, subject to detailed reference—I would ask the hon. Member to consult the Table because I have not the dates in mind—I think he will find that all of them can be put down tomorrow, although their prospects for tomorrow are not very good, and there are two which could certainly survive even after the Recess.

Mr. Benn: Without in any way challenging your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, would you agree to give the House your

considered guidance in this matter tomorrow? The word "proceedings" has already been the subject of many Rulings by the House. One which comes to mind was the Sandys case, in 1939, when it was decided quite definitely by the Committee of Privileges, and upheld by the House, that proceedings in Parliament included any speech or reference in Parliament to a matter, and it would be open to argument, at any rate, that my hon. Friends who spoke, with your consent, on the question of the Scottish speed limit, had taken proceedings in Parliament.
I do not ask you in any way to vary your Ruling tonight, but I wonder if you would be prepared to consider Standing Order No. 95 and report to the House at your leisure, tomorrow or later, so that my hon. Friend's point about the fear that we may lose the right to discuss a number of Regulations should not go without at any rate some further consideration.

Mr. Speaker: In order to avoid any kind of discourtesy, I will deal with the matter this way: I will promise to give the matter the fullest possible consideration, with my advisers, and if I am wrong—or believe myself to be wrong, or can persuade myself that I am wrong—most certainly to tell the House so without hesitation. Otherwise I would prefer not to deal with it, because I do not entertain a doubt at the moment. I hope that that is the fair and proper way to deal with the matter.

Mr. W. Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, are you ruling that this discussion is taking time out of the Adjournment debate?

Mr. Speaker: No. I took great care to be uncertain whether or not the Adjournment had been moved.

SCHOOL PUPILS (POLITICAL INQUIRIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

11.47 p.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I am very relieved to be allowed to deal with this very important subject, to which I am glad to see the Minister is here to reply. On 2nd June, I put a Question to the Minister of Education asking him about the activities of the security forces as they related to pupils at school. From the exchanges that took place in the House on that occasion, it seemed to us that the Minister made two statements which, at least by implication, widened the matter considerably, and thoroughly alarmed hon. Members on both sides of the House, besides teachers, parents and a wide section of the Press.
What he did was to admit that security forces approached headmasters of some boys and girls who had left school. Secondly, he implied that a headmaster could, as he called it, give advice on "the facts of life"—in this case the warning by the headmaster that the holding of certain political views might be damaging to their future employment prospects.
Subsequent to our discussion on that case, the headmaster of the school concerned, whilst denying that he had been approached by security officers about any boys at present in school, admitted that he had been approached by security officers. According to The Guardian of 3rd June, the headmaster said that security officers
ring up to ask what a pupil's politics were while he was at school".
He continued:
It is a practice I do not hold with. In future, I will not reply to them.
I will say only this about that case. I—I am sure many hon. Members share my view—am grateful to the headmaster, first for frankly acknowledging that secret police had approached him, and secondly for courageously saying that he would not reply to them in future. He gave an honourable lead to other members of his profession. I also agree entirely with his next comment,

which according to the same newspaper was:
Questions about the political views of boys of school age should never be put.
The parents who thought inquiries were being made of children at present at the school were mistaken, though it was perhaps understandable that they should have thought so, because of the way the matter was handled. I leave that particular school there.
Two questions remain about the Government's security policy in general. First, do the secret police in fact make inquiries about the politics of children still at school? Secondly, if they do, can it be justified? Further, are the admitted inquiries—the Minister does not deny these inquiries—about former students justified?
My answer to whether the secret police do inquire about children still at school, despite the denials in this case on 2nd June, is that they do inquire about pupils at school. I have had considerable correspondence from various parts of the country. I have been to investigate one or two cases. I am completely satisfied that such cases have occurred. I had intended to recite to the House tonight two particularly lunatic examples of the activity of these security forces. I am always reluctant to mention schools and names, because of the embarrassing publicity to all concerned. As it happens, I am spared that decision, because it is no longer necessary to establish this charge.
Last Thursday I asked the Prime Minister
if he will issue instructions to the appropriate Government authorities that no approach shall be made, save at the express direction of the Minister concerned in any particular instance, to any head master or mistress or other teacher to secure information or opinions about the political bent of any of their students"—
that is, children still at school—
or past students.
The Prime Minister replied in a Written Answer:
No. In 1952 the Government decided that special inquiries must be made to ensure the reliability of Government staff employed on exceptionally secret work. It would be impracticable for specific Ministerial instructions to be issued in each individual case, but the inquiries are made by officers on behalf of the Minister concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1960; Vol. 626, c. 120.]


On the basis of that Answer, it is clear that this meant that inquiries are made about the political bent of school children at present at school. Otherwise, I assume, the Prime Minister would have gone out of his way to allay the apprehensions of teachers, parents and students.
This is an extremely serious matter, calculated in my opinion to damage the integrity of our educational system in a free society. It will chill parents and teachers alike. It is a doctrine more fitting to a totalitarian society or the pages of George Orwell's "1984". When the original Question and Answer took place in June, the right hon. Gentleman had a very bad Press. Newspapers as diverse as the Daily Mail and the Guardian commented very adversely on the replies he made. The Daily Mail, in a leader on 4th June, headed "Spies in School", said:
There is something absurd and laughable about the affair of the security men and the schoolboys.
Do these M.I.5 men, or whoever they are, appreciate how ridiculous they appear, trying laboriously to discover whether a man is likely to become a spy by talking to his former headmaster or tutor?
It would be interesting to know what kind of anwers they would have unearthed if they had tackled some of the masters or university tutors of our present political figures.
The young Macmillan of 1914 must have seemed an exceedingly dangerous element. 'He keeps supporting Socialism in speeches in the Oxford Union', we can see the investigator writing in his notebook. 'Puts undue emphasis on his working-class great grandfather'".
Of course, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would have been quite beyond the pale, as he took an active part in the General Strike. I do not know what the Press will say when it understands the implications, as I see them, of the Prime Minister's Answer to my Question last Thursday.
I come now to my second question, can these inquiries be justified? Here my answer is an emphatic no. Of course I admit the need for security forces. Of course I know that every Government has certain secrets which other Governments try to get and a Government of any political complexion has a duty to defend them, but can the political views of a boy of 15 to 18 be any guide to what views he will hold in future? Let us consider how that would apply to the

House of Commons. On the basis of the political views we held when we were 15, 17 or 18, there would be some considerable changing from one side of the House to the other. Some hon. Members with possible ambitions to enjoy Government secrets would be denied them if the test of what political views they held when they were 17 applied to them. That goes for hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Does not the Minister think it wrong to ask teachers about the political views of children? What qualifications have teachers or 'headmasters for answering such questions? Certainly teachers are entitled to be asked and qualified to answer questions about pupils' and former pupils' academic ability and general character, but on politics their views are no better and no worse than those of Aunt Mary or anyone standing at the corner of the street. The Minister is asking them for judgments on the political views of their pupils and former pupils, which are secretly communicated and concealed from the pupils and parents. Yet those secret decisions might be enough to ruin the investigated one's future.
Only today I was talking to a school teacher who told me that one of his pupils, a boy of 13 with an interest in science and whose master thought a suitable boy to take science, said he wanted to change his subject. "Why?", he was asked. He replied, "Because I fear that if I go ahead with this, when a get a little further I shall have to conform to certain ideas of the Establishment and certain social ideas, and I do not want to be so confined". That is a very serious matter.
May I quote an extract from a letter which a schoolmaster has written on this subject, in which he says:
Security checks, as we now know on the authority of the Minister of Education, are extended to cover a man's childhood career at school. What he says and does in his childhood and adolescence may be observed by his teacher, and used subsequently in evidence against him. The teacher paid by the State is in certain circumstances expected to act as a Government spy".
I note the very sane observations of the gentleman who wrote to the Manchester Guardian on 21st June. He noted with alarm that at a mock election held at his son's school during the last General Election the Communist


candidate had a resounding victory. He continued:
Is there any machinery whereby M.I.5 can be asked to record that the franchise was limited to the senior forms so that at the material time my son had no vote? Or must I rely on the headmaster's memory? Or may I assume that he has now a dossier in which such vital facts are duly noted? I seem to recall that at such an election in my own school I gave my vote, spoke in support of and planted bombs on behalf of the Communist candidate. Fortunately my objective was not the Ministry of Supply but the Ministry of the Church". It is signed "The Rev. K.H.
That is A sane letter which puts this matter into perspective.
I ask the Minister to end this monstrous intervention in educational life which in my view is calculated to turn the minds of youth from a critical analysis of modern problems into a servile acceptance of the standards which they think might be to their ultimate benefit. I ask him, too, to assure teachers that they will not have to answer such questions about their pupils.
If, despite all these arguments, the Government insist that this form of security must go on, at least he should end the sinister secrecy, confront the accused with the allegations and give him a chance to disprove what are often the nightmare lunacies of faceless men who think that every radical in dissent against the status quo is a potential traitor to his country.
Let the Minister also think of the position of the masters, mistresses and other teachers which will follow the lead given them by the headmaster to whom I referred tonight. Will he give an assurance that headmasters and teachers generally will be perfectly within their rights if they refuse, as I hope most of them will refuse, to answer questions about the political views of students or former students? If the Minister does not give a satisfactory answer, I warn him that my colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party who are specially interested in education, and the party as a whole, will return to this very serious matter when Parliament reassembles in the autumn.

12.4 a.m.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): I am glad that the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) has raised this subject, because

it deals with liberty and the rights of the individual, and the House ought to be particularly careful on these matters. It also give me an opportunity, now that the hon. Member has raised it on the Adjournment, of commenting on and I hope clearing up obvious misunderstandings which have arisen on a delicate matter, yet one in which, I think, the main issues are pretty clear.
I feel that I must first comment on the events which led to the debate. As the hon. Member said, in his original Question, asked in the House on Thursday, 2nd June, he made two allegations about what had happened at the William Ellis School in North London. I am glad to say that, on investigation, both of those charges turned out to be incorrect.
The hon. Member first alleged that the headmaster had been asked about the political leanings of boys now in his sixth form, and secondly, that the headmaster had tried to influence the political views of his pupils. By checking on these facts, which the hon. Member could have done—as I did immediately the question appeared on the Order Paper—he would have found that both allegations were unfounded.

Mr. W. Griffiths: No; I have deliberately moved from this individual case to the wider principles, and the right hon. Gentleman must not say that I have found that both of these things are untrue. I still say that the headmaster did ask the boys about their political views, and also warned them of the dangers of holding certain views; and I also say that the parents were speaking the truth when they told me so.

Sir D. Eccles: In my judgment, the hon. Member is quite wrong in that allegation, as I think I shall be able to show in the process of my reply. I would like to deal with the general principles, because there does seem to be a good deal of doubt, both about the responsibility of officials acting on behalf of the Government in this matter, and the responsibility of head teachers.
I want to deal, first, with the responsibility of Government staff employed on secret work. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded the House last Thursday, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member, that the Government introduced in 1952 a new procedure to ensure


the reliability of Government staff employed on exceptionally secret work. That, as we know, especially concerns work involving access to secrets associated with atomic energy. It was then decided that special inquiries should be made about those holding, or applying for, such posts. Since then, particulars have been sought from those persons holding these posts, and those applying for posts, and also from other people, so that the Minister might decide if the staff was fit to be entrusted with such secret information.
Any person considered unfit, including, for example, members of the Communist Party, or of a Fascist organisation, or those associated with such bodies in such a way as to raise legitimate doubts about their reliability, are barred from employment of this nature. After a few years the House was concerned to know how the system was working, and in 1956 a conference of Privy Councillors from the two main political parties was set up. It found that there was nothing organically wrong or unsound about the Government's security arrangements. That conference dealt with the public services generally, and the House was told, in Cmd. Paper 9715, that the conference recognised that in certain areas of the public service, notably the foreign service, the defence field, and the atomic energy organisation, the need for stringent security precautions was greater than elsewhere.
These are the considerations which make it necessary, on occasion, to put inquiries to headmasters in order to secure information about a candidate for a post coming within the categories which I have just mentioned.
I emphasise this point. It is entirely untrue to say that inquiries are made in any general sense about the political views of pupils in a school, and I hope that this will dispose of any suggestion that there have been efforts or attempts to influence the political views of boys who are past or present students.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West) rose—

Sir D. Eccles: I am sorry, but I have only eight minutes left.
I should add that inquiries about candidates are not made by officers of

M.I.5 or of the Special Branch. They are made by departmental officers specially appointed for the purpose, but it would not be practicable, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, for specific Ministerial instructions to be issued in each individual case, partly because, very often, more than one Minister is involved. All this was known to and approved by the House when the Atomic Energy Act was put through.
I come now to the responsibilities of headmasters when faced with questions of this kind. No head teacher or teacher may seek to indoctrinate pupils with this or that political view. If he does, he is guilty of professional misconduct. That is clearly understood and endorsed by both sides of the House, and I have no evidence whatever that the headmaster of the school with which the hon. Gentleman has been concerned has acted with anything but complete propriety in this or in any other respect.
On the other hand, I do say to the House, as I said before, that a headmaster has some pastoral responsibility to his pupils, and if, from his knowledge of the world—some features of which we all regret—he thinks that pupils are behaving in ways that may damage their subsequent careers, he is entitled to tell them so—

Mr. Hale: What are those ways?

Sir D. Eccles: —but when he does this he obviously runs the risk of being misrepresented—as indeed, has happened in the case that has been brought to our attention. The headmaster has been misrepresented by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange. That, however, does not alter a head teacher's right to inform pupils about facts of which they may not have knowledge. I would entirely agree that in doing so a head teacher must carefully avoid advocating this or that political view himself.
The headmaster also has the right and duty to maintain discipline and good order in the school. While he must not influence the political views of his pupils, he must be free to discourage or suppress activities that he considers may be damaging to the good government of the school. It is clearly neither possible nor desirable for the Minister to attempt to lay down any rules as to the circumstances in which a headmaster should


act in this context. The freedom of head teachers and class teachers from direction in the daily running of the school is one of the cornerstones of our educational system, and I do not think that hon. Members would want to see that principle eroded.
This brings me back to the question of the liberty of the subject, which the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange maintains is being threatened. I can only say that the procedures for determining whether a particular candidate is suitable for a certain limited category of posts have been generally agreed by both sides of the House—

Mr. Hale: By whom? They were not agreed.

Sir D. Eccles: The procedures in themselves are not a threat to the liberty of the subject—

Mr. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman know what the procedures are? We do not.

Sir D. Eccles: The procedures are well known. There have been Press reports that questions are asked about the affiliations of a particular person. It can happen—but, I suppose, rarely—that a boy in a sixth form applies for a job with the Atomic Energy Authority. He is not going to university. In that case I—am sure it is a rare one—it is necessary, and the boy knows it well, as he is applying for a job which entails knowledge of secret information, to make inquiries about him. All hon. Members, on both sides, know that we have these procedures.

Mr. Griffiths: Of the headmaster?

Sir D. Eccles: The inquiries must be made. The headmaster is only one of the people—

Mr. Griffiths: About politics?

Sir D. Eccles: The inquiries must be made—

Mr. Griffiths: In secret?

Sir D. Eccles: —whether the boy—[Interruption.] He knows that it is part of getting the job. Everybody understands that. The individual is very well aware that the information will be sought from those to wham he is well known. It remains true that any headmaster,

being asked questions about an applicant of Whom he has knowledge, is free not to co-operate if he does not wish to do so. He is under no compulsion to answer if he does not feel that it is his duty to do so.
I regret the necessity for these procedures as much as any hon. Member. If hon. Members care to refer to our debate in March, 1954, on the Committee stage of the Atomic Energy Bill, of which I was in Charge, they will find that over and over again I said that we on this side regretted that these procedures had to be adopted, but that in a world which fears war one cannot avoid what is really a necessary evil. On the other hand, I said then, and I repeat now, that it is not part of the duty of a free society to give men who aim at the overthrow of its institutions a sporting chance to do so.

Mr. Griffiths: Will boys in the sixth farm overthrow society?

Sir D. Eccles: If boys in the sixth form have applied for a job which entails secret information, they must be vetted just the same as if they were 20 or 30 years of age.

Mr. Griffiths: What were the Minister's views at 16?

Sir D. Eccles: The whole point is that the boy has applied for a job in which it is known that secret information will be made available to him. He must, therefore, like anybody else applying for such a job—

Mr. Hale: Does he know what is said against him? Does he have the chance of reply?

Sir D. Eccles: It is a question of getting the information from all sources and building up a case. These things are carefully done by fair means. I assure hon. Members that although we may, at this point in our history, have to take strict measures to protect the security of our country—and there is nothing between the two sides of the House on that—

Mr. Hale: This is a purely Communist method. It is trial in secret.

Sir D. Eccles: —the basic freedom of the schools and of the pupils in the schools remains fully protected.
I assure hon. Members that I dislike the idea that we have to have checks upon people who are going to serve the State in any capacity, but if part of their duty brings them into contact with information which would be of the highest value to any potential enemy, it must remain, in the present state of the world, our duty to see that people do not get access to such information unless they are reliable. In order to carry out that

duty, we are bound to ask certain questions about them.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In the time, which is available—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.